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

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?
Social evolution.

I don't think the monarch was the axis. It was social evolution. In the original meaning, the monarch and those seated to the right were impediments to social evolution. I don't think much has changed.


Sure. Evolution.


132669-004-AF290F2D.jpg
Revolutions can be a messy business. Would you prefer to live under a monarch or in a liberal democracy?



THe evolution you referred to, ie the French Revolution, did not lead to a liberal democracy, but to mass murder, absolute dictatorship and a continent wide war.

You liberals are entire too blase in your assumption that change is always good.
 
Sure. Evolution.


132669-004-AF290F2D.jpg
Revolutions can be a messy business. Would you prefer to live under a monarch or in a liberal democracy?
how about a republic ?
Same thing.
No it's not.
Not to get personal, but did you stamp your foot as you wrote that?


Just like a lib, to state he is not getting personal, and then IMMEDIATELY, in the same fucking sentence, get personal.



And you libs wonder why we don't take you at your word.
 
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?
Social evolution.

I don't think the monarch was the axis. It was social evolution. In the original meaning, the monarch and those seated to the right were impediments to social evolution. I don't think much has changed.


Sure. Evolution.


132669-004-AF290F2D.jpg
Revolutions can be a messy business. Would you prefer to live under a monarch or in a liberal democracy?
how about a republic ?
Would you say that 'democracy' is to the 'left' of 'republican' (honest question, no subterfuge)?


Says the man that said he wasn't getting personal, when he was.
 
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?
They both are focused on the collective use of the state to push their agendas.
 
Sure. Evolution.


132669-004-AF290F2D.jpg
Revolutions can be a messy business. Would you prefer to live under a monarch or in a liberal democracy?
how about a republic ?
Would you say that 'democracy' is to the 'left' of 'republican' (honest question, no subterfuge)?
Left and right are meaningless terms.

We are a republic not a democracy

In a democracy the minority is subject to the whims of the majority.

The terms left and right have had meaning since the late 18th century.

Our republican form of government is considered democratic even though it is not a direct democracy. Democracy simply means rule by the people. Whether that is undertaken by representation or directly does not alter the premise that the people have a say in their governance.

I would say that direct democracy is to the left of republicanism. :2cents:

Would you also say that such a form of government is oppressive to the minority?
 
Revolutions can be a messy business. Would you prefer to live under a monarch or in a liberal democracy?
how about a republic ?
Would you say that 'democracy' is to the 'left' of 'republican' (honest question, no subterfuge)?
Left and right are meaningless terms.

We are a republic not a democracy

In a democracy the minority is subject to the whims of the majority.

The terms left and right have had meaning since the late 18th century.

Our republican form of government is considered democratic even though it is not a direct democracy. Democracy simply means rule by the people. Whether that is undertaken by representation or directly does not alter the premise that the people have a say in their governance.

I would say that direct democracy is to the left of republicanism. :2cents:

Would you also say that such a form of government is oppressive to the minority?
It's better than having a minority oppress the majority.
 
how about a republic ?
Would you say that 'democracy' is to the 'left' of 'republican' (honest question, no subterfuge)?
Left and right are meaningless terms.

We are a republic not a democracy

In a democracy the minority is subject to the whims of the majority.

The terms left and right have had meaning since the late 18th century.

Our republican form of government is considered democratic even though it is not a direct democracy. Democracy simply means rule by the people. Whether that is undertaken by representation or directly does not alter the premise that the people have a say in their governance.

I would say that direct democracy is to the left of republicanism. :2cents:

Would you also say that such a form of government is oppressive to the minority?
It's better than having a minority oppress the majority.
Democracy in any form, republican or other, is neither a guarantee of liberation nor oppression. It depends on the volition of the people who have control.
 
Sure. Evolution.


132669-004-AF290F2D.jpg
Revolutions can be a messy business. Would you prefer to live under a monarch or in a liberal democracy?
how about a republic ?
Same thing.
No it's not.
Not to get personal, but did you stamp your foot as you wrote that?
A little levity does no harm.
It's just that this has been gone over so often that insisting republics are other than a subset of democracy has become a cliché.
Sorry if feathers got ruffled.
In any event, it is hardly a serious matter.
 
Confronting people with the vague nature of language at least stirs the unconscious to look more deeply.
As with chicken soup, "it couldn't hurt'.
 
Confronting people with the vague nature of language at least stirs the unconscious to look more deeply

Well then, allow me to go down Orwell avenue ,and insinuate it's all a facade , contrived political theater 4eyeM......

~S~
 
Confronting people with the vague nature of language at least stirs the unconscious to look more deeply

Well then, allow me to go down Orwell avenue ,and insinuate it's all a facade , contrived political theater 4eyeM......

~S~
"It"? What "it"? This thread is not. If you mean D.C., the U.N., the E.U., then arguably, yes.
 
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?


For the U.S.....the Right, believes in the Constitution of the UNited States, with it's limits on the power of the federal government.....the Left, believes that the Constitution is a block on the accumulation of power in the hands of the federal government.
 
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?


For the U.S.....the Right, believes in the Constitution of the UNited States, with it's limits on the power of the federal government.....the Left, believes that the Constitution is a block on the accumulation of power in the hands of the federal government.
nothing but canards and red herrings from the right wing. they love to project and blame the other persons.

We have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause nor even a common offense clause.
 

Forum List

Back
Top