Far left - US/UK definition

There are poor people everywhere , especially in non democracies. But, as you realize, leftist proscriptions have done, if anything, far worse at aleviating poverty than conservative proscriptions. That is, socialism fails miserably, making almost everyone poorer. capitalism makes almsot everyone better off.As for industrial accidents...conservatives do not object to safety standards, as long as they're reasonable and not an excuse for unecessary degrees of government control. For example, consider US states where conservatives are in charge: Do you thye eliminate safety standards? Of course not.

I think you're a closet conservative. All it'll take is for you to realize that the left, as you see it, is actually the right, and vica versa.

In leftist nations, there are still those more powerful and richer. Speaking of canada, who got to go on GG Clarkson's famous international trip at a cost of millions of our tax dollars? All her leftist arts friends.The left believes that by overtaxing the rich, they'll create equality. Instead, they make almost everyone poorer. That is why britain, Sweden and even Canada, reversed increasing socialism in the 80's. The result is that all three saw their economies take off. There is, at this time, an ideological battle between the french and Brits within the EU, the former refuding to follow the lead of the latter, despite that it has long ago passed them in every vital economic measure.

sadly, i think you have.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 07-23-2005 07:56 PM

---

אָרַח

My point is that we (in Canada) don't use left/right labels as "organizing principles". The only "organizing principles" that we use, as a rule, are specific policies on specific issues.I suspect that the same may be true in the UK, etc.The two-party system in the US seems to lend itself to "conservative Democrats" and "liberal Republicans". That sort of thing doesn't happen in Canada (and the UK?) because our representatives are (generally) required to vote the party line.Because there is only a blurry distinction between the two parties, I think Americans have set up an artificial distinction between "left" and "right" which nobody can really define.

---

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

No, I was a conservative, or I thought I was; I was a liberal all along, just like you. Just like you I cherish individual liberties and freedoms, and the right of persons to do things that I don't particularly agree with.I hope you'll come to the same conclusion I did, which is that the "conservative" side is the side of hypocritical moralism, nosey snoopery, and conformist subjugation to religion, government, and corporation. If you think you're on the side of individual liberty and freedom, you're very much mistaken, and I hope you come to see your error.

Hello Mick. I just wrote a long reply to you and somehow completely lost it. I'm not up to rewriting it. Everything you are calling a neutral fact is a leftwing position and if I can get back to it later to make the case I will. And no, I don't call everybody left wing I disagree with, I disagree with everything I know is left wing. Even then, occasionally the left wing says something I agree with, though I can't think of an example off hand .

I certainly don't "realize" that. It is highly debatable, but even I can see that it doesn't belong in this topic.

---

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

With respect to free enterprise, you argue that:
"yes, and no. it creates the most wealth to a certain point, but free and private enterprise is one of those systems that inherently fails. it encourages mergers and buyouts and monopolies, which actually hamper the system itself, not to mention the economic output."The inherent nature of free enterprise is that some failures are inevitable. When the auto industry arose, most industries related to horses failed. But more jobs and wealth was created anyhow.Monopolies are a problem, and are inherently averse to capitalism. Thus, every capitalist nation has particular laws and regulation to keep that in check. Thus, I agree with you that some order of checks are needed. And thus, even in nations where conservatives are more powerful, like the US, those checks remain.Interestingly, though, as technology advances, many presumed monopolies prove not to be. Take telephone service. Not long ago the US broke up ATT&T. Yet only a few years later cell service became available and would have, in any event, broken that monopoly.I understand your feeling that qualitative social programs are needed. I agree (my career mainly being work with foster children). the problem is that governmetn isn't very good at providing such services, and eneds up protecting itself more from liability as its first order, than actually providing good care. Small example: When I ran group home programs in the 80's, we'd take our kids on cross continent summer trips. I'd teach them to sail and race with me. We plastered the walls with photos of the kids and our trips. We had a great German Shepherd. Now, noneof that is allowed in most jurisdictions, because of liability and confidentiality concerns. ironically, it is the left in the US, at least, that protects the trial lawyers who have made government so fearful.

You wrote: "I cherish individual liberties and freedoms..."That is classical liberalism. taht is the position of today's conservatives, today's liberals having left that behind. Reagan famously answered a question as to why he left the Demcoratic Party thusly: "I didn't leave it, it left me."

we have a label fetish here in the us. we like to label and clearly define people in pre-defined terms, view points, diseases, etc. we then basically stick to those labels faithfully. a "right" person always votes "right."i don't know why this is.

---

אָרַח

Just consider every nation that took a decidely leftward slant. none decreased poverty; not one.

lmao.

As I said upstream somewhere, the left aims to equalize - i.e. to make the poor less poor. Saskatchewan, the most left-wing province, is still one of the best places to be poor in Canada. Would those be the same 80's that virtually destroyed the Conservative Party in Canada and literally destroyed the Conservative Party in Saskatchewan? Funny. Saskatchewan's economy crashed and burned until we got rid of the Conservative Party. Our grandchildren will still be paying off the debt they ran up.

---

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

no, that's socialism. communism has no government ownership of anything, because there is no government. many governments have called themselves communist, but none were. because none can be.

---

אָרַח