Canada should lead a U.N. reform.

[kraychik]

Everything you see, up to and including price differentials, MLW posters more nuanced than you, and pee-wee hockey belongs to your (largely fallacious) "right-left paradigm."

And you have refrained from carefully delineating any of what you mean by any of this, including the profound distinctions between this "left" entity and the Right and the Centre.

The right-left paradigm is very real. And knowing where someone falls on this spectrum provides a deep insight into one's core beliefs about human nature and politics. Of course it has its limitations, but its utility far exceeds its shortcomings. I think this is your cue to post a link to the dual-axis political chart where one axis is economic liberty and the other is social liberty. Come on, I know you want to do it. I'll let you enjoy this fantasy that you know something about this subject that I don't.

[kraychik]

Globalism is not a liberal idea ANYWAYS.

Depends how you define globalism, of course. It's not a word I used, anyways. I was specific when I stated that centralization of control and a broadening of the scope and power of the UN while granting greater influence over the UN's operations to inferior states is a leftist ideal, which it is. The left is all about centralization and universalism. The only internal distinctions are whether the leftists are national or international in their focus and ambitions (Nazism vs. communism, for instance).

Edited July 6, 2012 by kraychik

[dre]

So the "left" is now such a nonsense term that it is put in quotation marks? It's not my problem if you don't understand what leftism entails.

No but its your problem if you pretend that you DO when you DONT. If you look around at the various international power-grabs being attempted, and at the people who are trying to move power away from people and national democracies and place it in the hands of international beaurocrats youll see that what they all really have in common is that they are elites, financiers, and multinational businesses. Some of these people may qualify as leftists but most of them dont.

[kraychik]

No but its your problem if you pretend that you DO when you DONT. If you look around at the various international power-grabs being attempted, and at the people who are trying to move power away from people and national democracies and place it in the hands of international beaurocrats youll see that what they all really have in common is that they are elites, financiers, and multinational businesses. Some of these people may qualify as leftists but most of them dont.

No, the move to centralize control in the hands of bureaucracy is a leftist value. The main distinction between the left and the right is the difference between the emphasis placed on the individual versus the collective. So centralized planning is an exclusively leftist objective. In the words of Dennis Prager, "the bigger the state, the smaller the individual". That's really it in a nutshell.

Edited July 6, 2012 by kraychik

[DogOnPorch]

Depends how you define globalism, of course. It's not a word I used, anyways. I was specific when I stated that centralization of control and a broadening of the scope and power of the UN while granting greater influence over the UN's operations to inferior states is a leftist ideal, which it is. The left is all about centralization and universalism. The only internal distinctions are whether the leftists are national or international in their focus and ambitions (Nazism vs. communism, for instance).

I like the cut of your jib. Agreement.

[dre]

Depends how you define globalism, of course. It's not a word I used, anyways. I was specific when I stated that centralization of control and a broadening of the scope and power of the UN while granting greater influence over the UN's operations to inferior states is a leftist ideal, which it is. The left is all about centralization and universalism.

Again thats simply wrong. Look at the people that formed the UN in the first place. Leftists today have basically turned against the whole idea of military interventionalism, and many of them dont want to have a military at all.

The left is all about centralization and universalism.

Again... thats a nice sounding slogan... the problem is its just not true. These days leftists are the ones taking to the streets to protest these kind of efforts. They dont trust any of these international beaurocrats any more.

This whole paradigm has been tipped upside down in the last 40 years, you just somehow failed to notice.

[bleeding heart]

So the "left" is now such a nonsense term that it is put in quotation marks?

No, I call your opinion into question. That's all. And that's rational.

After only reading a few of your posts, I can already see right through you. You're far more transparent than you want to believe.

With myself, as with a lot of other people, you could be occasionally surprised. Perhaps even you are not a doctrinaire conservative, plagairizing all your beliefs from effete, eltiist reactionaries. Anything's possible.

And that you think you know everything about a complex human being from, as you say, "reading a few of [my] posts" is an astonishing claim. I'm going to assume you aren't serious.

Edited July 6, 2012 by bleeding heart

[kraychik]

I find it funny that this guy is trying to redefine what constitutes the left. This is pretty elementary political theory we're talking about. If you're not even up on the basics, we can't have a serious discussion.

[dre]

No, the move to centralize control in the hands of bureaucracy is a leftist value. The main distinction between the left and the right is the difference between the emphasis placed on the individual versus the collective. So centralized planning is an exclusively leftist objective. In the words of Dennis Prager, "the bigger the state, the smaller the individual". That's really it in a nutshell.

Again youre parroting slogans that might sound nice to you but they just arent true.

Go count up the leftists in the UN, or NATO, or the EU, or the IMF, or among International central bankers. Like I said the left/right political spectrum is not the relevant factor hear. The move towards global authorities is for the most part brought to us by elites, bankers, and businesses. These are the people who gain from globalism, and from weakening national democracies.

I understand the need of people like you to see absolutely everything about the world through your little left/right glasses, the problem is thats just not how the world works.

[dre]

I find it funny that this guy is trying to redefine what constitutes the left. This is pretty elementary political theory we're talking about. If you're not even up on the basics, we can't have a serious discussion.

Because what youre doing is parroting conventional wisdom that just isnt true anymore. All you have to do is take a quick look around to see that... Go and look at the major international organizations and what motivates them. ITS ECONOMICS, not political ideology that is driving these things. Theres lots of liberals AND lots of conservatives that are against these movements.

By fallaciously associating the idea of international authorities with the "left" you are completely missing the point. The vast majority of this activity is around business/finance/commerce/trade etc.

[carepov]

The UN has 4 main purposes

To keep peace throughout the world;

To develop friendly relations among nations;

To help nations work together to improve the lives of poor people, to conquer hunger, disease and illiteracy, and to encourage respect for each other’s rights and freedoms;

To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations to achieve these goals

http://www.un.org/en/aboutun/index.shtml

Since 1945 there has been considerable progress towards each goal. The abolishment of the UN would be a giant step backwards.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Since 1945 there has been considerable progress towards each goal. The abolishment of the UN would be a giant step backwards.

Great...then you can pay for it...all of it.

Edited July 6, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[kraychik]

Because what youre doing is parroting conventional wisdom that just isnt true anymore. All you have to do is take a quick look around to see that... Go and look at the major international organizations and what motivates them. ITS ECONOMICS, not political ideology that is driving these things. Theres lots of liberals AND lots of conservatives that are against these movements.

By fallaciously associating the idea of international authorities with the "left" you are completely missing the point. The vast majority of this activity is around business/finance/commerce/trade etc.

You're completely ignoring everything I've said, which is simply articulating the philosophical differences between the left and the right with respect to how they value the individual versus the collective. It's not really controversial, either. Centralization of control and erosion of individual sovereignty in the interests of "the greater good" is a leftist ideal, where the supremacy of the individual is a value of the right. It's not complicated.

[kraychik]

The UN has 4 main purposes

To keep peace throughout the world;

To develop friendly relations among nations;

To help nations work together to improve the lives of poor people, to conquer hunger, disease and illiteracy, and to encourage respect for each other’s rights and freedoms;

To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations to achieve these goals

http://www.un.org/en/aboutun/index.shtml

Since 1945 there has been considerable progress towards each goal. The abolishment of the UN would be a giant step backwards.

The UN has actually worked against all of its stated objectives. The world is less safe and [/i]less free[/i] with the UN. We don't need "harmony" or "cooperation" with states and/or societies that subscribe to value systems that are antithetical to our own. We need to defeat them, not work with them. Unfortunately, the UN is an obstacle to the spreading of freedom and prosperity in this world. Your reflexive support for the UN and the leftist fantasies of singing Kumbaya is the viewpoint that needs to be defeated in the West. The good news is that over time, the number of folks in the West who feel positively about the UN and its mission is declining. I just wish that change occuered more rapidly.

[carepov]

The UN has actually worked against all of its stated objectives. The world is less safe and [/i]less free[/i] with the UN. We don't need "harmony" or "cooperation" with states and/or societies that subscribe to value systems that are antithetical to our own. We need to defeat them, not work with them. Unfortunately, the UN is an obstacle to the spreading of freedom and prosperity in this world. Your reflexive support for the UN and the leftist fantasies of singing Kumbaya is the viewpoint that needs to be defeated in the West. The good news is that over time, the number of folks in the West who feel positively about the UN and its mission is declining. I just wish that change occuered more rapidly.

I challenge you to pick a time and place pre-1945 and tell me that you would have been more free and prosporous then compared to now.

[kraychik]

I challenge you to pick a time and place pre-1945 and tell me that you would have been more free and prosporous then compared to now.

This has got to be the stupidest correlation-causation fallacies I've encountered all day. The inconvenient truth for you is that the world would be much more fee and prosperous today if the UN was not around.

[bush_cheney2004]

I challenge you to pick a time and place pre-1945 and tell me that you would have been more free and prosporous then compared to now.

1927...Harlem, NY, USA.

[bud]

Great...then you can pay for it...all of it.

quit whining, especially if you're okay with the u.s. taxpayers paying over $4 billion a year to israel and to egypt (on behalf of israel).

[kraychik]

1927...Harlem, NY, USA.

Let's assume person A is sixty-seven years old, born in 1945. I guess the world is better off today in 2012 compared to 1945 because of person A's existence. What would the world have been like without person A, though? It's a scary proposition!

[bush_cheney2004]

quit whining, especially if you're okay with the u.s. taxpayers paying over $4 billion a year to israel and to egypt (on behalf of israel).

But I like paying for Israel. Nobody is making you pay for Israel.

[carepov]

1927...Harlem, NY, USA.

As a black person or white person?

[bud]

You're completely ignoring everything I've said, which is simply articulating the philosophical differences between the left and the right with respect to how they value the individual versus the collective. It's not really controversial, either. Centralization of control and erosion of individual sovereignty in the interests of "the greater good" is a leftist ideal, where the supremacy of the individual is a value of the right. It's not complicated.

so you're all for ron paul.

[bush_cheney2004]

so you're all for ron paul.

Who is Ron Paul...Canadian?

[bush_cheney2004]

As a black person or white person?

...as a person.

[kraychik]

...as a person.

Perhaps the UN can be credited with all the positive economic and technological developments we've enjoyed since 1945. Mobile phones, high-speed internet, cheaper automobiles, granite countertops in our kitchens, you name it - the UN did it! Let us all congregate at the altar of the UN for our daily worship session.