X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 15:45:00 CST
From:         Titivillus <T9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: the right
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> Titivillus pisze:

> >> (MUCH DELETED from this most glorious Val vs. Caius argument)

> >> The arrows belong to Caius, in case you care.

> >> > The essence of the Right is to support free-market and property rights fo
> >> > everybody not for a group. But if property rights are threatened by the
> >> > radical socialists both big and small business are on the right.

> >> Caius, you are right. The Stalinist regime and the actions of Pol
> >> Pot have analogs in Nazi Germany.

> Thank you for understanding.I thought I had learned Chinese instead of English

I hope you understand also that, as you consider yourselves a
"rightist," and want to disassociate your opinions from the Nazis,
I, as a "leftist" do not want the authoritarian governments of
China, Russia, Cuba and the Warsaw Pact to be associated with my
beliefs.

Is this understood?

> >> Caius, you are wrong. Classical Liberalism, the precurser to the
> >> modern Left, came up with the concept of Lassaiz Faire capitalism
> >> while Conservatives were defending monarchism, an authoritarian
> >> construct, by definition.

> I see no contradiction between monarchism and capitalism.
> There are two separate aguments: political and economic.

Capitalism assumes the consumer is in control of himself and
is able to decide what goods and services are necessary for
him. (I use the male form because English has no neuter personal
pronoun)

Monarchism, esp. absolute monarchism assumes people need 'sheparding'
by one greater than others. Monarchism is often propped up with
"divine right" arguments: God(tm) gave this person the ability
to lead, so he can control the goods and services I provide and
receive.

Economics is modified by everything.

> I agree that authoritarian, monarchist solutions are usually asossiated with
> the Right, while the leftists are usually democrats (at least verbally, in rea
> life democracy is difficult to implement; even Communists called themselves
> TRUE democrats.)

Of course, we all know the secret ballot was unknown until recently.
BTW, Caius, do you have the secret ballot now? Tell us (under another
heading) how votes are handled there, OK?

> Both monarchy and republic are only tools from the economic point of view.
> They can be used to justify and introduce capitalism or socialism.

Yeah, but (once upon a time) capitalism and republicanism (even
democracy) were counted as liberal ideas. My, how time flies.

> On the economic level supporters of the natural developnemt of capitalism
> based on individual values seem to belong to the rightist movements, while
> the leftists prefer the state to perform some equalizing or redistribution
> tasks.

Yes. I don't think leftists are really all that thrilled with
adding to the power of the state, else why would the ACLU always
bump heads with procecutors? They just think that they want the
problem solved RIGHT NOW without thinking what that would do.

> The only difficulty you may have with the above classification is the
> STRONG STATE. If the state is strong in DEFENSE from foreign dangers, or in
> preventing social disorder inside the country, it surely belongs to the
> rightist political concept of authoritarian or monarchist thinkers.

However, social disorder inside the country comes from the artists
and the thinkers. Plato said so himself when he wrote himself out
of his Republic. Think of the social disorder caused by the invention
of the car, or of the computer. Jobs and Woj were definately hoping
to bring power to the people when they came up with the Apple.

> If the state is strong in REGULATING the economic life (e.g colour of your
> dress (China), prohibits possesion of gold (USA 1970s), puts quotas on
> employees, prohibits some categories of trade without special permission,
> enforces compulsory "social insurance", deprives your property rights, etc
> it is a leftist economic design of redistributing state.

> I believe the latter is the most important danger to our liberties.

I sort of mentioned this earlier. A person whose heart is pure
and intentions are good can throw a monkeywrench in the works
without knowing what is up.

/Example.
Nietsche came up with a theory of the "ubermench," which is a higher
form of every person. It is a goal within ourselves, not a group of
people genetically better than anyone else. However, it was later
mutilated into a "master race" theory that brought Europe into barbar-
ism, as well as into a fairly cheesey comic book.

This is going on (ideas without fully thought-out concequences,
not serious philosophy becoming comic books) every day in DC.

If anyone, inc. Tim, needs this explained better, tell me, OK?

> Caius

Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.sdstate.edu
I belong the _____ generation, but
I can take it or leave it each time
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU