Left-Wing, Right-wing, or Central?

[Daedthr]

In the spirit of the recent British General Election, do you consider yourself more left-wing, right-wing, or central and why?

 

I'll leave an idea about each perspective here in case it's something people haven't explored much before, but really what each of the terms mean is a matter of debate in itself.

 

The Left-Wing will generally hold that it is the responsibility of the State to provide for all individuals within it, which is permitted by the contribution of each individual.

 

The Right-Wing will generally hold that it is the responsibility of the State to create an environment in which every individual is able to provide for themselves by merit of their own contribution.

 

Centre will hold that an appropriate balance of both is the optimum condition for a good and stable society.

 

The difference I give here is subtle, but it is one of the few distinctions that is both defining of each approach and yet still agreed upon as correct by members of both groups. It's also simple to put.

Edited May 10, 2015 by Daedthr

[HeyYou]

I guess I would have to say "centre". (center? scenter?) You need a balance of both, as there are going to be those individuals that are unable to care for themselves. Trouble is, with such a system in place, there are those that will take advantage of it because they simply don't WANT to take care of themselves.

[Daedthr]

Ah, very well. Suppose I make two replies:

 

 

You need a balance of both, as there are going to be those individuals that are unable to care for themselves.

 

Is an individual who cannot care for themselves likely to be able to contribute to the State either? If not, then why is the State obliged to care for such people.

 

 

Trouble is, with such a system in place, there are those that will take advantage of it because they simply don't WANT to take care of themselves.

 

Could this not be considered the only case in a Left-Wing Society that warrants an individual be excluded from the State? Such a society might hold that there is no inherent value in doing a certain type of work, but that there is value in working, and therefore two people doing different jobs would be of equal value, but were one of them not to work, the would be of lesser value, and hence no longer be entitled to the benefits of the state. Can a Left-Wing state hold such a view and still be considered Left-Wing, or is even this distinction too promoting of individualism?

 

I apologise in advance, I am playing Devil's Advocate.

[HeyYou]

Someone that cannot (will not?) care for themselves is a drain on the state....... But then, you get into "who is worthy of support"...... A whole new can of worms. Consider Steven Hawking. He most certainly cannot care for himself.... but, is he 'worth' supporting?? One could argue that he does indeed contribute......

 

But, what about all those folks in nursing homes? Those that for one reason or another, can no longer live on their own. They are no longer contributing...... but, that does NOT imply that they haven't contributed over the course of their lives.. Did they "earn" the right to be supported in their twilight years? Or, should the state just write them off, and let them fend for themselves? (I.E. kill them. Either through direct action, or inaction...) And what about those that are born with some variety of disablity, that will likely never contribute? Should they be allowed to die as well? Who makes that choice?

 

Ah, Eugenics. If ever there was an industrial sized can of worms, you are it. :D

[Daedthr]

Perhaps the State must then decide whether or not those who cannot care for themselves are worthy of support based on whether or not the majority of those people will be capable of contributing, i.e. Are there more Stephen Hawking's in our country or are there more Locked-In Syndrome Babies? If the latter is the case (which unfortunately it likely is for most countries) then the State might decide not to try to provide for those who cannot contribute to society based on that majority, at which point we have reached Right-Wing extremist.

 

Either way, we're able to conclude that Right-Wing extremism is not suitable for a stable society, because it can lead to mass "euthanasia" as it did in the case of the Nazi's, and the killing of large percentages of the populace would eventually lead to a dysfunctional society (as well as being extremely immoral ofc). If we have reached this point from the right-wing principle of the State existing to create an environment in which each individual can provide for themselves by merit of their own contributions and doings, then perhaps the right-wing is not the way to go at all, as the principles behind it lead down a "slippery slope" to an extremist, dysfunctional society.

 

In which case perhaps a left-wing society is the way to go, in which all individuals are provided for, with the possible exception of those who could contribute to society but choose not too.

 

However, you could then flip the above on it's head for a moderate right-wing state, in which all individuals must provide for themselves, with the exception of those who cannot.

 

Therefore there is an argument for both sides, it goes round in circles. :D

 

Personally though I would favour the more left-wing approach, as I would expect it to be easier to create a society which supports those who cannot care for themselves, if that society was built on the understanding that one is working for the good of all, rather than for oneself with a little charity on the side.

 

Though perhaps the latter endorses more freedom? Gracious, it never ends!

[HeyYou]

Go far enough left, and you end up with communism. A system that does NOT reward individual acheivement/industry. You end up with a society of mediocre drones, doing what they do, just to pass the time....

 

 

A "happy medium" would be best.... trouble is, I think that is a mythical beast. :)

[Daedthr]

Perhaps, though a Communist might argue that you do not need to be recognised for individual achievement to have a fulfilling life, they might even say such reward is bad as it fuels ego, which can be detrimental to society. They may say that one can feel fulfilled through materialistic gains (whatever one decides to spend their share of the state profit on) or through the knowledge that one is helping the progress of humanity by collaborating with others to make an efficient society. Certainly the latter was promoted under scientific Stalinism.

 

I don't think extremism is ever desirable, but if I were to lean one way or another, I'd rather lean left.

[HeyYou]

Biggest problem, as I see it, no matter which way you go, is those in power tend to abuse their power...... Just human nature. The more power they have, the more likely they are to abuse it. One of the reasons the world is in such sad shape that we see today.

[Daedthr]

Yes that's true, and history shows a strong correlation between extremist regimes and dictatorships. I don't think necessarily think Communism warrants a dictator though, in theory it should actually work better using an elected council of some kind, even if it remains a one party state.

[JimboUK]

Perhaps, though a Communist might argue that you do not need to be recognised for individual achievement to have a fulfilling life, they might even say such reward is bad as it fuels ego, which can be detrimental to society. They may say that one can feel fulfilled through materialistic gains (whatever one decides to spend their share of the state profit on) or through the knowledge that one is helping the progress of humanity by collaborating with others to make an efficient society. Certainly the latter was promoted under scientific Stalinism.

 

I don't think extremism is ever desirable, but if I were to lean one way or another, I'd rather lean left.

 

Communists forget that society is made up of individuals, each with their own wants and desires, humans are too complex to treat like worker bees. Free market states have borders designed to keep people out, communist states have borders designed to keep people in, there's a reason for that, communism demands people go against human nature and to ensure compliance it must be oppressive.