Are you anti USA or anti Bush?

[KrustyKidd]

Ten.

[Guest eureka]

When you do your calculations, bear in mind that they represent only your subjective judgements. Others may see intelligent comment in a different light. If you are open minded, you will think a little differently.

I think that you should perhaps take a little more thought about Left and Right, I am, unquestionably a Social Democrat - I don't know how any mature and intelligent could be other. I do not slot into some fancied slot that is "Left" as opposed to "Right."

This would make eleven?

[KrustyKidd]

Cool. I am probably right but have many left beliefs that are statisticlly left. Among them Israel being wrong on the wall, homo marriage, Indian treaties being honored and free speech without reservation within limits of hate and patriotism. I call things the way they are and believe it or not, voted Green in our federal election in June.

As a 'brainwashed Bushie' as some on this forum have called me, I would say open your frickin' minds. I personally think he is scum but even a stopped clock is right twice a day, a thinking person should be corect some of the time, so my beliefs cannot be all wrong.

If there is something wrong with my reaoning then it should be extremely easy to prove it wrong. Do it so that I can keep myself in the correct field. If my argument (s) seem idiotic to you then say it, however, be careful not to call me an idiot for I may possibly be vastly superior to you in one way or many and so, you would probably be lying.

Socialit/Democrat

I don't know how any mature and intelligent could be other

I do. My good friend Hugo (whom I disagree with almost as much as I agree with) can explain it much better as he has studied the works of Marx in detail and specializes in Socialism. None of it has suceeded. In it's gestational forms it has proportionaltely killed more people than any alternative war and inhibits human progress. Democrat, sure, but conservatives share virtually the same views save more responsibility on the individual. Which brings us back to Socialism. The greater is madeup of many smaller. Strong small, strong big. Guess it all comes down to the bar level in which we separate help and unjustified welfare.

Eleven? Doubt it, you have an argument in every post, not one has been a rant. A compliement for sure as you have never resorted to rhetoric and belive it or not, your arguments are origional. Refreshing.

[Argus]

As for the vetoes by the USA. you have only to look at the records to find out how wrong they were and what an abuse of their position on the Securoty Council

This is your idea of defending your point, of making your case? "I am right, because there is evidence! Don't ask me for it, go out and look for it!"

No. Thank you. I will presume by your inability to provide instances to support your case that you have none.

It is conceivable that once in a blue moon one party might be taking a moral stand against all the rest. It is not conceivable that the party can consistently defy the will of the world and attempts to stop the slaughter and be right.

Not a particularly valid point unless you can show that all the motions the US vetoed would otherwise have been approved unanimously. And I highly doubt that is the case.

Given its makeup is primarily that of criminals, murderers and tyrants I attach little importance to the overall vote numbers of the UN

[Argus]

I actually think those from the Left are highly intelligent and have a valid outlook on world politics and such.  I listen to their reasons and they usually make sense and often are well within the ballpark of rationality. 

I would never go so far as to generalize to that extent. Some of those on the left are obvious idiots, as are some of those on the right.

My problems with the left are - and again I am generalizing to an extent - that too much of their beliefs stem from emotion, and have a disturbing tendency to ignore reality, context and the varying problems of situational ethics.

In addition, I've observed an irritating habit of moralizing, of presuming that they care more about people than those on the right, and that their own solutions to real or perceived problems are not merely more likely to work, but are morally superior to anyone elses. Further, that those who disagree with them are not merely wrong, but immoral.

There's also their preachiness over social issues, but the right tends to do that, too, though usually from different directions.

[KrustyKidd]

True, some are idiots but have you ever noticed that there seem to be more idiots on the Left than the Right? Given the intelligence of most of them I would imagine that this would be biased perception rather then reality as there are thousands of world class geniuses on earth now and throughout history just as there on the Right. Given the perception that each holds of the other's views I would say that there certainly is a lot of closed mindedness going on within the more enlightened of our society as they view each other often as sub-intelligent.

.

My problems with the left are - and again I am generalizing to an extent - that too much of their beliefs stem from emotion, and have a disturbing tendency to ignore reality, context and the varying problems of situational ethics.

I think you hit on one of the key values of the Left here. Emotional. See it work in their speeches, websites, appeals, and even here .... in their posts. Often they replace a valid argument with ranting and hatred of something or track off into it from a valid one - like Bush for example. If it were not Bush, it would have been somebody else, even Kerry, but see how they paint Bush as almost sub human, a coward, a nut, a slack jaw, a Dr Evil, Gordon Geko the Wall St villan ..... but there is always the emotional hatred when making an argument of the right being wrong. When bringing up victims, they are always innocent, even when they are racist and warlike themselves they are simply victims of some bigger evil - like the US or, prefferably Bush. Emotional pictures are great too, deformed babies and weeping women because they assume that nobody but they knows that war kills and DU is bad. Like the Pro Life groups painting Pro Choice as Pro Murder they use shock pictures because they think people have no idea of what an abortion is. Emotional value.

Notice the Right does not use picutres of celebrating Iraqis in posters, news clips and such, also missing from their websites are torture victims with arms being cut off, genitals burned by blow torches etc. All of it was videotaped by the former Regime so there is lots of footage to go around yet none appears. The Left would use it if it fell in line with their argument. Notice that schools being built, markets thrieving are not mentioned or portrayed in the press even though 99.9% of Iraq is at peace and well on the way to success as a country and people are getting on with their lives without fear of being killed or worse.

In addition, I've observed an irritating habit of moralizing, of presuming that they care more about people than those on the right, and that their own solutions to real or perceived problems are not merely more likely to work, but are morally superior to anyone elses. Further, that those who disagree with them are not merely wrong, but immoral.

They don't care about people more though, they only use the 'poor victims' as a tool to make their point or futher their cause. Llike Lennin who said he was there to save the masses, he actually despised them but, the 'useful idiots' seved their purpose as they became the 'indntured fulcrum' for his political lever. The moment he took power, this impovershed exile became more bourgeois than Marie Antoinette. They use something like the Iraq action as a vehicle to make their point, saying the US should leave now etc. while ignoring the repercussions of leaving thirty million people to a certain civil war with five or ten factions carrying out reprisals against civiliians in the heart of a country with an unspeakable amount of leftover munitions. Who cares how many hundrreds of thousands or even milions die in purges as warlords terrorize, at least the US gets burned to make their argument.

This is not to say that they are wrong by any means. I think that before you can have change you must first have ideals, theory and emotional reason. They supply this.

A simple parallel would be the world of industry. An engineer is practical as he designs a brindge for example. Same old same old as he figures it has to have square corners to evenly distribute weight or whatever. Along comes the artist who makes the simple design somethig that has a truely human touch and between them invent one that has curved edges that are both pleasing to the eye imagination as well as structuarally more enhanced as the weight is now more evenly displaced. In short, the bridge is stronger because of the artist's touch.

That is why the Left is essential in my mind, the Right is practical but the Left suppies the humanity. What so many forget is that all of us are both and sometimes the values are intertwined in the individual.

[Guest eureka]

Boy, but it must have hurt you to bring that forth!

I agree that the Left has more idiots than the Right. It also has far more genius and intelligence. I think that the Right is made up of the mediocre who have no ideals and see everything in terms of taxes and money. That is why the Right is almost always wrong.

I take it back as far as you are concerned, thoygh. Your description of Bush is masterly, it borders on genius in its colouration. Where I had been trying to decide whether he is an idiot, an imbecile, or a moron, you find the perfect comparisons. Truly, he is evil rather than just feeble minded.

I do believe strongly, though, that we must have the Right with us. Without the contrast of inhumanity, the left would become complacent and drift into an unconcern of the status quo. Ideas and ideals flourish when there is something about society that is indecent and inhumane.

[KrustyKidd]

      Boy, but it must have hurt you to bring that forth!

Not really, it came from an editorial I wrote once. I hope you enjoyed that .

I agree that the Left has more idiots than the Right. It also has far more genius and intelligence.

Really now? I would be surprised to hear different as most of this country and the free world is Left leaning so it only makes sense in numbers. Proportionately though, I would say that each is blessed with equal amounts of intelligence. You equate intelligence from your own narrow perspective (which is a sign of a lack of it BTW). A Left leaning artist, painting a mosaic of the night sky to you, would be classified a genius possibly, but the engineer who designed part of the rocket engine to place a man in space would be a virtual Homer if their political views conflicted with yours.

However, having smarts is not the end all to everything. For example, most of Lenins fellow intellectuals ended up with a bullet in the back of the head and their dreams of Socialist unity ending up in horror for their trouble. Of course, most weren't true socialists, mainly playing the Left card for the University and Intellectual crowd, but before most got deep sixed, they managed to put away pretty much any Left (and right) genius they could lay their hands on. Hardly the mark of a really smart buch of guys. Pol Pots fellow intellectuals ended their days the same. Allende was pretty with it as well, but forgot that he had to be firm and he couldn't please everybody all the time, he only needed a gentle push over the cliff courtesy of the USA backed Christian Democrats and the Military. The masses who he had turned his back on once too many times were powerless to help. In the end, he went down like a Right Winger though, pistol in hand but to have succeeded, he would have had to be a Socialist Dictator with a little more oppressive tendencies. As he was, he truely was Left and in that was his weakness. He had to deal with a real world with real problems and his methods didn't cut it.

Where I had been trying to decide whether he is an idiot, an imbecile, or a moron, you find the perfect comparisons.

Well, to help you a bit, he is fairly well educated, I'll bet a few hundred bucks that he is more than most of the Left leaning people on this board anyways. That includes you if you didn't figure that one out. Does that make you an idiot? You be the judge, are you a fighter pilot or do you hold a Bachelors Degree from Yale University and an MBA from Harvard or anything close? If so then I appoligise, if not, you have a strange way to define lack of intelligence. I suppose in the light of my last comment you will go back to some sort of childish rant like 'Daddy got it for him' or whatever.

Anyways, here are some credentials of those who are dumb in your books and those who are smart. You will note the 'smart guys' are drop outs and such.

Truly, he is evil rather than just feeble minded.

This was a good example of an emotional rant. Emotional because to describe Bush as evil one would have to redefine evil. We currently figure evil is something like concentration camps and killing fields. Genetic and ethnic cleansing, medical experiments on Jewish and Gypsy prisoners, yet you can classify Bush as evil. I calssify your definition as lack of reality to what true evil is.

I think that the Right is made up of the mediocre who have no ideals and see everything in terms of taxes and money. That is why the Right is almost always wrong.

You have a narrow view, very restrained. I thought you were more expansive than that. Neville Chamberlain was Left, he was very wrong. Pol Pot was Left wing as well, and also wrong. Stalin pretended to be Left, and he was right. Einstien was left and he sold out to the right. Gahndi was left and helped propegate the deaths and mutilation of thousands of his own in the campaign of nonviolence (huh?). Churchill was right and also right thank God. Kennedy was Left and he was right. All in all, it is a strange mix the political world makes with no side having the clear road to right and wrong. Your statement shows a lack of understanding that is emphasized by your bravado.

I do believe strongly, though, that we must have the Right with us. Without the contrast of inhumanity, the left would become complacent and drift into an unconcern of the status quo.

Unconcern of the status quo? Once again you show a narrow mind and a conceit that reveals your lack of an open mind. Some of the greatest advances in history have been by Right minded people and organizations. You cannot have peace without security and the world was not always a gentle place with rules and laws. Yes, the left would drift off. We have witnessed the Left when unrestrained by the reality of the Right, purges, executions by the millions, massive starvation and expansionism globally on a scale never seen by humankind, rampent poverty and lack of basics but to call them the sole proprietors of advance is true folly.

Here, as a treat I give you Orson Welles from 'The Third Man.' (A great movie if you can put up with the much overdone continual zither background music.)

'In Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock.'

The Left.

Ideas and ideals flourish when there is something about society that is indecent and inhumane.

As I noted above. However, you are here,doing the starving artist routine. BTW, did you know that CarLy Simon got her big break from being the daughter of Simon of Simon and Shuster? Anyways, the starving artist, how romantic. They are usually the first ones to go, just before the agitated university crowd, but just after the homosexuals and the diseased.

I made a mature effort to bring forth diffences but you want to keep this as a competition. Go for it. You have a history of losing arguments with me and Hugo, usually bringing up some proof but in inadiquate amounts and quality to make a strong point. If you are that unsure of yourself that you cannot join the discussion about the inherent differences between the Left and Right without keeping a one upmanship attitude and some sorty of chip on your shoulder that tells me a lot about your intellect and open mind. Thereroe, I will drop this attempt to talk about our basic differences and go back to the thread.

[Argus]

I agree that the Left has more idiots than the Right. It also has far more genius and intelligence. I think that the Right is made up of the mediocre who have no ideals and see everything in terms of taxes and money. That is why the Right is almost always wrong.

Your view of the right is a caricature. However, if we go with your view, that of right wingers being industrialists, money lenders, etc., and the being made up of artists and intellectuals, you do arrive at the cliched seperation of ideas.

The left cries "Look at the poor! Look at the poor! Give them money!" This is an emotional and moral argument by people who neither understand nor care (in fact, dismiss contemptuously) economic consequences of coddling the poor. At the height of Ontario's welfare generosity close to one out of ten people in the province were being supported on welfare, which resulted in higher taxes. Further, the more generous is welfare, the harder it is for small business to recruit workers for lower paying jobs. Together these two act as drags on the economy, in effect, cuasing a fall in jobs and producing more poor people.

This is simply an example of the thoughtlessness of your "genius" thinkers on the left who argue out of pure emotion, then bitterly attack the alleged immorality of the right who point to money restrictions and deny them their tender wishes to help the less fortunate.

I take it back as far as you are concerned, thoygh. Your description of Bush is masterly, it borders on genius in its colouration. Where I had been trying to decide whether he is an idiot, an imbecile, or a moron, you find the perfect comparisons. Truly, he is evil rather than just feeble minded.

Bush is nothing more than your typical drone politician, dull eyed, lacking morals and ethics, and just happy to have a job. There really isn't much difference between him and Jean Chretien or Paul Martin or Dalton McGuinty, or most of our other politicians. They simply have more money to play with and are on the other side of the political spectrum.

The hatred of Bush is simple stupidity. Bush is not a man filled with malice, not an evil man, and despite some avarice and a dedication to helping enrich campaign supporters there is little which can honestly be said about him except he's not particularly bright.

It's interesting that you can get tens of thousands of furious people in the street to protest against him, though, while someone who truly has blood dripping from his hands, like Russia's Putin or China's Zemin will draw mere shrugs of disinterest.

I do believe strongly, though, that we must have the Right with us. Without the contrast of inhumanity, the left would become complacent and drift into an unconcern of the status quo.

Oh I wouldn't worry about the status quo. By your excessively cliched view of life, absent the right and the left would soon be into massive bankruptcy, and all your noble welfare and social schemes would unravel and fall apart.

[Guest eureka]

I can believe that you are quoting one of your own editorials and are an editorialist. The post is stereotypical in its pomposity and in the failure to recognize irony when you see it. If you like, I could quote you from some of my own writings to argue but I prefer something fresh. Judging by the quality of certain posters, I suspect that there are others who could do the same.

If you want to get into Left v. Right, I would be happy to accommodate you. You seem to be awfully confused about who is on which side of the Tennis Court.

I prefer the novel to Orson Welles version BTW. Grahm Greene was one of the most insightful writers of the twentieth century. Don't you think that he knew how silly that saying was? Don't you understand that it was was words he put into the mouth of a character; it was not something that Greene thought. Try reading some other of his works (I have read everything he wrote; his entertainments as well as his novels and short stories) and you will find different viewpoints.

[August1991]

I strongly disagree with this notion that the Left is somehow the heart and the Right is somehow the brain.

The left cries "Look at the poor! Look at the poor! Give them money!" This is an emotional and moral argument by people who neither understand nor care (in fact, dismiss contemptuously) economic consequences of coddling the poor.

WTF? The Left says: "Give them money from someone else's wallet!"

The Left often argues why some people, through no fault of their own, are in need of assistance or protection. Then, the Left argues for ways to protect or assist these people.

My main gripe with the Old Left is that the ways suggested to protect and assist people won't work and will just cause grief for everyone. (I think someone on the Right noted that the Left still has not come to grips with the atrocities committed by the State in such places as the Soviet Union.)

Elsewhere on this forum, I said that the Old Left looks for conspiracies, invests in symbols and misses reality. IME, the Old Left too often confuses reality and the symbols that supposedly portray it. For example, they assume that having a diploma means having an education. They confuse style for substance.

The Left has some serious soul-searching to do. It is in the process of doing it now and the results range from people such as Noam Chomsky to Tony Blair - passing by the incoherent, anti-everything demonstrators at world summits. Even that dilettante gadfly, Naomi Klein decided she needed to know more about economics (stylishly choosing the LSE).

[Guest eureka]

I would think that the "old Left" has largely disappeared. Socialism evolved into Social Democracy a generation or more ago in the mass. I see the problem as a resurgence of the "Old Roght" which has brought forward no ideas for the betterment of societies since Churchill brought in some measures nearly a century ago.

That resurgence is, inevitably, spawning a reaction that will include the violence that some of the "old Left" thought necessary to bring about a just society. The Left left had behind that thinking long ago.

Why the Left does not address the atrocities of Stalin is not too difficult to understand. It is simply that Stalin was not a Leftist but a totalitarian dictator who seized on the 1917 Liberal revolution to bring about his own dreams. In the same way that Hitler was not a Roghtist but one who used the Right for his own ends.

Totalitarianism evolves from both the Left and the Right. When it does develop, it is neither, though the Right remains closer in the installation of a regime of privilege and wealth.

Orwell, a Social Democrat, put it best when, in 1949, he said the everything he had written since 1936 had been against totalitarianism. Many think his writings in that period were Socialist They were, in fact, criticisms of Socialism too in that they saw dangers of it straying from its purpose.

[idealisttotheend]

Would you believe that I read August's post, thought about a reply, was going to post it, then read Eureka's and had exactly the same arguments right down to the Orwell reference. Amazing... only I'm sure eureka was more elegant than I would have been.

To add:

the Old Left looks for conspiracies, invests in symbols and misses reality.

Ever seen a buisness report on television without the daily footage of that damn bell at the NYSE (the NYSE now being drapped by that giant American flag, a symbol appropriated by the right for the most part.) Or the NASDAQ ticker. The DOW Jones average is of little value as a representation of the market and is more of a symbol in itself. Oh look, the DOW is up 30 points must be a good day, look it went over 10,000 break out the champagne, (once the speaker is drunk on the champagne in question), say what does that mean anyway, 10,000 what exactly?

The left sees conspiracies in corporations and the capitistic system in general (and I would not always disagree). The right sees conspiracies in the government which is coming to unjustly and unfairly take their money, their guns and their God. Welfare, minimum wages? All a conspiracy to keep wages up. People with absolutely no evidence regularily state that welfare fraud is rampant, people on welfare could easily get jobs and criminals have it much too easy as they just reoffend when they get out anyway.

And reality.... well that's probably only to be understood on another plane.

In short there are problems on both sides and just as you will have the same problems with a big corporation as a big government they are often the same.

Orwell, a Social Democrat, put it best when, in 1949, he said the everything he had written since 1936 had been against totalitarianism. Many think his writings in that period were Socialist They were, in fact, criticisms of Socialism too in that they saw dangers of it straying from its purpose.

I think Orwell changed his story on socialism a couple of times. He was a socialist but hated the Soviet union essentially, possibly I think that he, like so many on the Left, were disillusioned by the example being set by Comrade Stalin. I think the point to be taken is that socialism and totalarianism are seperate entities and that one can have one without the other. Furthermore one can have totaliarianism in 'right' societies as well, neither Mussolini or Pinnochet were democrats and some people say America is showing characteristics of emerging totaliarinism.

Even that dilettante gadfly, Naomi Klein decided she needed to know more about economics (stylishly choosing the LSE).

Understanding something is not the same as accepting it. Laws of economics will be rewritten just as laws of politics or physics have been and will be again.

I strongly disagree with this notion that the Left is somehow the heart and the Right is somehow the brain.

Here we agree. The Right is defininatly not the brain and the centre and/or the left can easily do both jobs.

[Argus]

I would think that the "old Left" has largely disappeared.

Nope, quite a few of them left, esp in the left wing of the Liberal party and among the NDP, people who still believe and drone on about the great possibilities of Marxism.

Socialism evolved into Social Democracy a generation or more ago in the mass. I see the problem as a resurgence of the "Old Roght" which has brought forward no ideas for the betterment of societies since Churchill brought in some measures nearly a century ago.

I think you have shown an obvious difference right there without even being aware of it. The "right" if you can describe conservatives in such a monolithic way, does not see it as government's duty or job to "better society". They see government's job as taking care of the basics of running the country, operating government agencies, dealing with foreign governments, providing police, fire, water, sewers, etc. etc. etc. The left sees the government as its mother, and "her" job is to give them anything and everything they want, to take care of any and all problems, and to make the world a better place to live. Since a lot of the left are obsesed with reforming society so that it will better reflect their beliefs, they see this as government's task, too.

As for the difference between the "new left" and "old left", it would be that the "old left" actually had some degree of education, while much of the "new left" are mere ranting, immature, uneducated fools who simply resent the fact the world is not to their liking, and that they don't have everything they want. They don't understand how the world works, but that doesn't stop them from hating things like capitalism, which they despise because, well, because they haven't succeded in life.

And that simply HAS to be someone else's fault. It certainly isn't THEIRS.

And so they jump up and down and point at succesful people, who they derisvely label "rich" and say "Mommy! Mommy! He has more than me! It's not fair, mommy! Give me some of his stuff!"

[August1991]

I would think that the "old Left" has largely disappeared. Socialism evolved into Social Democracy a generation or more ago in the mass.

The Old Left hasn't disappeared, eureka. And I suspect that you're evidence of the fact. Am I wrong?

The left sees the government as its mother, and "her" job is to give them anything and everything they want, to take care of any and all problems, and to make the world a better place to live.

Argus, call it the Left (or Mom) if you will, but what is wrong with making the world a better place, measurably, by any means that work?

My sense is that the Left wants to assist and protect some people. My point was that the Old Left believes that markets and corporations threaten or impoverish some people. The Old Left believes that the State is the only means to counter this.

Well, the Soviet Union and a Social Democratic Europe have shown that the State is a complicated institution. If the purpose is to help or protect people, does this institution work? What's the evidence?

And, do markets and corporations really threaten or impoverish people? Many poor people want to live in corporate market America, and few poor Americans want to leave it.

If you have quibbles about the Soviet Union (it was totalitarian) or Europe (it has a better quality of life), forget the historical record. Try theory.

In theory, the State (Soviet, social democratic or zodiac) relies on involuntary relations.

In theory, free markets rely on voluntary relations. Billions of people co-operate and work together through markets daily. This includes financial markets and all those numbers in the the boring section of the WSJ.

The New Left understands all those markets and numbers, and thinks of ways to make sure people are protected and helped.

The Old Left is clueless. It seeks conspiracies, invests in symbols and misses reality.

[Argus]

The left sees the government as its mother, and "her" job is to give them anything and everything they want, to take care of any and all problems, and to make the world a better place to live.

Argus, call it the Left (or Mom) if you will, but what is wrong with making the world a better place, measurably, by any means that work?

Two reasons: One, as you and I have already said, their economic beliefs, their programs, their ideas for reducing poverty, et al, simply do not work. They're unrealistic and utterly ignore human nature. Two, your idea of what constitutes a better world might not neccesarily coincide with mine. I don't elect governments to try and change my world. I elect them to take out the garbage. And they do a poor enough job at that. Trust politicians to make the world a better place!? On what planet?!

The only way politicians could make this a better country would be to leave.

[Guest eureka]

Quite wrong! Indeed I once helped manage the campaign for a Conservative challenger to a Liberal Party deity.

For betterment of society, I do look to government. The "Left" does not ignore human nature: it is optimistic enough to believe that human nature is not immutable and can change for the better: that humans can be brought to work together for the common good. The Left knows the selfishness and greed that is innate in humans but believes that it can learn to be better.

How is it that the Right constantly asserts that the ideas and programmes of the Left do not work? Where is the evidence of that? Many European countries are examples of their efficy in improving the lot of society as a whole. Whereas, for the Right and its economic and social aims, we have grinding poverty alongside wealth; social violence; incarceration rates that rival those of totalitarian societies; recessions and depressions.

At one time, I considered myself a conservative in the traditional sense. I thought that the statement of Aneurin Bevan that he considerd Conservatives to be "lower than vermin" to be way over the top. Now, I know what he meant and think he was rather mild in his assessment.

[Argus]

For betterment of society, I do look to government. The "Left" does not ignore human nature: it is optimistic enough to believe that human nature is not immutable and can change for the better: that humans can be brought to work together for the common good. The Left knows the selfishness and greed that is innate in humans but believes that it can learn to be better.

Most of the social programs advocated by the left, and the generosity they desire for them take little heed of the large number of people who will always take advantage of any generous program if it does not have rigid means testing. Welfare is an excellent example of that. Most of the left want greatly increased welfare benefits, taking scant regard of the certainty that this will draw more and more people onto the welfare roles.

Certainly humans can be brought together to work for the common good, but not very well. As all those collectives in the Soviet Union clearly demonstrated, if people will get the same renumeration regardless of their contribution then most will not bother to make a strong contribution. Unless it can be shown to personally reward them some will goof off, while some will merely work, but not strain themselves overmuch.

How is it that the Right constantly asserts that the ideas and programmes of the Left do not work? Where is the evidence of that? Many European countries are examples of their efficy in improving the lot of society as a whole. Whereas, for the Right and its economic and social aims, we have grinding poverty alongside wealth; social violence; incarceration rates that rival those of totalitarian societies; recessions and depressions.

And Europe has all that, too. So what's your point? Don't use the slums in the inner city US as examples, either, for they tend to be the result of a history of slavery rather than conservative economic policies. Although, frankly, some of the minority slums in France are just about as bad. And our incarceration rates tend to be mostly due to drug offenses and drug policy, not conservative economics.

[Guest eureka]

How do you know that a large number of people will take advantage of generous programmes I take it you mean unfair advantage. Since we have never had generous programmes and large numbers have lived in poverty since the days when programmes became a little more generous than those available under the Poor Laws, we do not know that.

Why do you bring in collectives under the Soviet Union? o far as I am aware, we have not had collectives to experiment with.

Europe does not have all that. Comparative wealth and income rates in Europe are far more even than on North America. Crime and incarceration rates here are far higher, too.

In the USA, there are almost 2 million people in prisons and more than 5 million in the correctional system. In Canada, the likelihood of spending time in prison is almost 3 times that in the U.K. which, in itself, has higher rates than most of Western Europe.

[August1991]

The Left knows the selfishness and greed that is innate in humans but believes that it can learn to be better.

That was exactly what many idealists, John Reed and others, believed the Soviet Union would achieve.

The "Left" does not ignore human nature: it is optimistic enough to believe that human nature is not immutable and can change for the better: that humans can be brought to work together for the common good.

Human beings are brought together now and work co-operatively to achieve a common good. They do this through markets but you apparently have no understanding of this.

How is it that the Right constantly asserts that the ideas and programmes of the Left do not work?

Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea, Eastern Europe. Sweden and the UK have had to change their social democratic policies. Tony Blair, Felipe Gonzalez and Bill Clinton are all evidence of a new type of Left Wing leader - the old tax-and-spend policies don't work.

These are examples of different degrees. I don't mean that James Callaghan and Kim Il Sung are identical.

Europe does not have all that. Comparative wealth and income rates in Europe are far more even than on North America.

I'd like to see statistical evidence of this claim. But income comparisons are difficult to make. Would you rather be a poor kid in a school in a Parisian suburb or a poor kid in a school in the Bronx? In which society is it more likely that you'll have a chance to make your way in life?

In any case, the goal of society surely should not be "equality". We are all different in our own ways. Some people like to work 70 hour weeks and to assume great responsibilities and risks. Others prefer to work 35 hour weeks and not take the workplace home with them.

In the USA, there are almost 2 million people in prisons and more than 5 million in the correctional system. In Canada, the likelihood of spending time in prison is almost 3 times that in the U.K. which, in itself, has higher rates than most of Western Europe.

I'm not certain what you mean by these statistics. North America has a bigger drug problem? The last time I checked, white incarceration rates in the US and Canada were about the same. The history of blacks in the US is hardly pleasant. But it was the State that condoned the sale of human beings.

Whereas, for the Right and its economic and social aims, we have grinding poverty alongside wealth; social violence; incarceration rates that rival those of totalitarian societies; recessions and depressions.

Huh? Countries that adopt free markets become rich. This wealth is not confined to a small group. It means poor people in western countries live better now than at any time in history.

Please eureka, understand how markets work before arguing that the government is necessary to protect us against the rich and greedy.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

Countries that adopt free markets become rich. This wealth is not confined to a small group.

Au contraire, it is the theory of free enterprise that dangles the promise that '100% of the wealth deserves to be concentrated in the hands of the 1 who earns it'.

[caesar]

I strongly disagree with this notion that the Left is somehow the heart and the Right is somehow the brain.

Me too; the right doesn't have any brains that I have seen. Just greed.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

Please eureka, understand how markets work before arguing that the government is necessary to protect us against the rich and greedy.

Monopoly laws, for one thing. Free enterprise is like a big game of 'Monopoly', it's just that you aren't allowed to win. The argument that 'monopolies wouldn't work because one could charge $500 for a coke' is bunk. The market prices are dictated by what people can pay. People would stop using whatever product they couldn't afford, and go with alternatives, no matter who owns or markets the product. Monopolies do exist anyway, it's just that a lot of people don't know it.

For example, Pepsico. owned KFC, Taco Bell and Pizza Hut, among many other restaurant concerns. People who did not know this thought the had a 'choice'. The market would dictate what each of these restaurants could charge. If one of them charged $100 for a meal, the other two would get all the business. If they all charged $100, people would just eat at home.

You might argue that if Pepsico charged $100 per meal, other companies would start up with lower prices, fuelling competition and therefore benefit the economy and free enterprise. That is, assuming Pepsico were a bunch of idiots.

[caesar]

A monopoly, is not one company that owns several different restaurants. Monopolies are a concern not because of optional goods such as pepsi. It is necessary to control and disallow them due to the necessities in life.

Such as all the grocery stores, all the home heating products; all the electrical services; all the car fuel companies owned by one source.

Your comparisons are inaccurate , irrelevant and silly

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear caesar,

I used pepsico only as an example, to show that 'what the consumer doesn't know isn't a monopoly'. Companies such as GE, for example, are far closer than Pepsico to controlling all of the things you mentioned.

A monopoly may infact be a good thing for the consumer. The company would control costs, would only charge what renders the most profit (with the idea that the lowest possible profitable price would lead to the most consumption) and you wouldn't have to pay an extra 10 cents on the dollar to have Tiger Woods hawk it to you.