It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ExPostFacto
I think you missed one important aspect of our two party system. Both the dominate parties are expanding the role of nationalized government.
Both seek to pacify the population through two different extremes giving the people less choice then ever in our history
Originally posted by dolphinfan
To have a coherent and honest discussion of political philosphies you may want to start from a basis/depiction of them both that are equally balanced. This chart is so obviously from a left wing perspective, simply look at the terms, and it can be boiled down to enlightened and unenlightened and is thus little more than agitprop.
Originally posted by dolphinfan
The document provided is nothing more than a display of benign traits of the left and negative traits related to the right.
As such, it is merely a propoganda piece and not worthy of spurring a serious discussion.
Why would most models, the premise of which are to educate, contain any bias at all? Why would it not be "natural" for most of them to have a right wing bias?
The document provided is nothing more than a display of benign traits of the left and negative traits related to the right. The document is meant to engage in a discussion where the right-leaning person will defend purposefully negative statements. As such, it is merely a propoganda piece and not worthy of spurring a serious discussion.
The field of social psychology has long been focused on how social environments affect the way people behave. But social psychologists are people, too, and as the United States has become increasingly politically polarized, they have grown increasingly interested in examining what drives these sharp divides: red states vs. blue states; pro-Iraq war vs. anti-Iraq war; pro-same-sex marriage vs. anti-same-sex marriage. And they have begun to study political behavior using such specialized tools as sophisticated psychological tests and brain scans.
Emory University psychologist Drew Westen put self-identified Democratic and Republican partisans in brain scanners and asked them to evaluate negative information about various candidates. Both groups were quick to spot inconsistency and hypocrisy -- but only in candidates they opposed. When presented with negative information about the candidates they liked, partisans of all stripes found ways to discount it, Westen said. When the unpalatable information was rejected, furthermore, the brain scans showed that volunteers gave themselves feel-good pats -- the scans showed that "reward centers" in volunteers' brains were activated. The psychologist observed that the way these subjects dealt with unwelcome information had curious parallels with drug addiction as addicts also reward themselves for wrong-.ed behavior.
The 20th Century showed us the dark-side of left-ism when taken to its extreme (Stalin, Mao) and the dark-side of right-ism when taken to its extreme (Hitler, Mussolini).
Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by Skyfloating
Why would most models, the premise of which are to educate, contain any bias at all?
Originally posted by UngoodWatermelon
Ultimately I feel that modern liberals, classical liberals and right and left libertarians are all in the same camp - philosophically at least. Whilst it's clearly true that they all see different ways to accomplish their goals, their goals are arguably similar; Individual freedom from authority in general and the ability for the individual to make his/her own choices in life.
Originally posted by Skyfloating
The following illustration provides a general understanding of left-wing tendency and right-wing tendency (scroll to get a full view):
Having a clearer understanding of the differences between left and right and the positive sides of both is helpful to understand what Libertarianism. The political landscape unfortunately emphasises the negatives of the other side by which they both start looking like enemies of civilization.
As you can see the left wants to change and improve the world and the right wants to conserve the world and keeps things as they are. A left-winger who sees the right negatively, claims they halt progress, are rooted in old thinking, are resistant to positive change, have no imagination, are old farts, are fat capitalist pigs who are resting on their cash, are responsible that the world is not improving. A right-winger who sees the left negatively claims they want to destroy good traditions, destroy prosperity, tear down established norms, are hateful and unhappy with life (hence wanting to improve it), are radical and undisciplined nutjobs, are naive and gullible, are responsible that the world is worse off.
In order to develop more compassion, awareness and intelligence it is important to have a full understanding of how the two sides see each other and why. It is then of value to see the merit in both sides, how both sides only want the best for life but what they view as "the best" vastly differs. Those who created our two-sided political system understood the dual nature of humankind - the collectivist vs. indivudal, the future-oriented vs. the past-oriented, the agents of change vs. the agents of conservation.
So the whole left-right paradigm comes down to the following question:
Change the world or not? And people who can imagine better will tend to say "Yes!" whereas people who are already happy will tend to say "No!" The truth naturally lies somewhere in the middle:
Changing what is bad and keeping what is good.. In this understanding, the utopian-idealist is needed to create progress and improvement and the conservative-traditionalist is also needed to preserve what has worked and proven itself throughout time.
Libertarianism is an intelligent choice because it seeks to combine the best of both sides. As you can see in the image above, the left values social freedom and the right values economic freedom. Seen negatively, the left limits economic freedom and the right limits social freedom. There is a lot of historical evidence for this. Both seek to impose on others. I believe the creators of our political system were initiated into how-life-works and devised a system that would one day merge into a libertarian society in which every individual is free and also responsible enough to do as they choose.
The right-winger wants to force you by law to act in certain ways regarding drugs, morals, sex, abortion etc. By doing so he is stealing your ability to chose the right thing of your own free will. The left-winger wants to force you to give money, pay tax, conduct Business a certain way or protect the environment. By doing so he is stealing your ability to chose the right thing of your own free will.
The two systems are therefore Authoritiarian and ultimately in opposition to human nature. Human nature is that in order to learn what is good or not, one needs to make self-determined choices. And even if mistakes are made - thats how you learn. By taking the choices away from you, Authoritarianism cripples your ability to learn and grow more intelligent.
However, if we remove the left-right paradigm right away, society would collapse because we are not mature enough for it yet. Thats why I predict the transition will be slow.
The 20th Century showed us the dark-side of left-ism when taken to its extreme (Stalin, Mao) and the dark-side of right-ism when taken to its extreme (Hitler, Mussolini). The 21st Century will show us more Libertarianism.The future is socially/culturally somewhat liberal and economically/fiscally somewhat conservative.edit on 25-8-2011 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)