Far left - US/UK definition

Roe vs. Wade can also be seen as state rights vs. federal interference, and as the rights of the unborn. Thus, it proves nothing with respect to argument presented.

Well, that wouldn't be possible, since I used to be on the right. As someone who's been on both sides I know that what I'm telling you is not a misperception. The overal conservative movement is evangelical conservatism. Has been for a long time. If you believe in the merit of the individual and their right to act within their freedoms, in whatever way they see fit, regardless of your religious objections, then you're a liberal. Always have been. While liberals once had a limited home within the right, those days are long over. Your side left you behind, CS.

Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, since i can't see even eniough agreement on the issue to begin a dialogue.

Hrm, that's the most civil you've been so far when attempting to dodge my arguments and retreat from the issue. Congratulations on that.

I forget to address gay rights. Polls show the majority of conservative favour full rights for gays, but does not accept gay marriage.

It seems to me that you are confusing the "collective" with the "cooperative".The left emphasizes pooling our resources for the common good - "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".That's not a submission of individual freedom - it's an equalization of individual freedom.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

As I was afraid would happen, this is staying on the level of generalizations. Definitions are being challenged and that's a sign that greater specificity and examples are needed. I'd still like to see something like an issue of the Guardian, say, analyzed to show how it reveals a left or a right or a moderate view or whatever, according to different points of view.At least Canadian Steve offered a long list of criteria that can be discussed, but just objecting to this or that item isn't going to help unless terms are more clearly defined and specific examples given to illustrate a point.IMHO.

Both sides believe in the coperative. But the left wants it through regulation and law, through government ownership in the economy, thriough international regulation, adn so on. At its extreme, Communism is the ultimate cooperative.The right believes in the cooperative through moral and ethical behaviour and responsibility, through charity.Take good old fashion barn raisings. The left would say that government assistance might be mandated, that union labour be obligated, that as many safety regulations as possible be proscribed for every conceivable eventuality, and so on. The right would say it's something the community should do on a voluntary cooperative basis.

you mean "socialism." communism is like socialism, without the regulation and law. "communism."This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 07-23-2005 03:04 PM

---

אָרַח

Actually, as a leftist commie pinko, I agree for the most part with Steve's description of the left. But this is a debate forum, not a Mutual Admiration Society - so we tend to focus on areas of disagreement.Now, if I may venture dangerously close to the topic:It seems to me that most of the media are owned by rich people - e.g. Conrad Black in Canada. Is it your impression, or that of CanadianSteve, that rich people tend to be leftist?

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

One point I didn't make strongly enough is this:The right believes in private enterprise, both for pragmatic reasons - it creates the most wealth - and because it is a part of individual freedom. The left is very suspicious of free enterprise, is quick to see large corporations as not a collection of millions of shareholders, but as an ugly, if necessary, behemoth that must be rigidly controlled by government.Of course, all power muct be checked - which is a key aspect of the American constitution. But whereas the right is suspicious of government power - because it creates an inverse of loss of power for the individual, the left relies on government power to feel empowered on an individual basis.

So, how's that working out for you? Any poor people left in the world? Any industrial accidents?

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Socialism and Communism are related, in that they both have goverment ownership of teh economy.However, the west created democratic socialism, whereby the government must stand for reelection. thus, when socialism proved a failure, the people overthrew staunchly socialist governments in the 80's. Labour parties revived by becoming much more Capitalist friendly.Communism is also government ownership of the economy, but is also the "dictatorship of teh proletariat." There were no free elections in Communist societies, and rightsd ended being brutally abused.Communists, believign that society could beperfected if only the disbelievers were out of the way, killed tens of millions in the Soviet Union and china and Cambodia and elsewhere. That, they believed, was necessary so they could pursue their perfection of human society.Gone for most of the rest of the day.

For good cause, and for the same reason we're suspicious of government and religion - all three are forces that often work to curtail individual freedom. Again, the individual is paramount to the left, and something to be subjugated to the right.

No problem with disagreement, but there ought to be some objective standards that can eventually be agreed on. Your agreeing with Steve's description of the left is a good start. That's a LOT of agreement considering how this topic has been going.There are rich people on the left and the right it seems to me. Ted Turner is outrageously rich and outrageously leftist for instance. I don't know anything about Conrad Black, not being a Canadian.