The Unknown Ideal
Discussion
Use Psychology said:
the principle is that government/state should be as small as possible and the set of laws/restrictions on freedoms in any society should also be as small as possible.
Why though? Is that a good thing in itself or a means to a better outcome? Why is a smaller state good?turbobloke
There seems though to be a blurred line between what we are individually and collectively responsible for, and the Conservatives, if not conservatives in general, seem to fall slap bang into the middle of that blur. For socialists/fascists it's easy - the state is their to solve problems and impose their own version of what is better for people on them.
With conservatism it's more complex. The sovereign individual types would no doubt say yes we have responsibility for enforcing property rights and defending ourselves from attack. Conservatives though appear to believe in a police force, an army and an over-arching legal system. They socialise this element of responsibility. Modern British Conservatives socialise health and education too, they're not sure about environmental protection and public decency. They seem to oppose collective responsibility for industry and for our prosperity, but are happy to override this as pragmatism - political or economic - dictates.
speedy thrills
Is this a conservative ideology though?
Use Psychology
There isn't really any country that matches my ideology. Some more closely than others in different ways. But that really misses the point of advancing the system one believes to be the best system of government.
AJS- said:
With conservatism it's more complex. The sovereign individual types would no doubt say yes we have responsibility for enforcing property rights and defending ourselves from attack. Conservatives though appear to believe in a police force, an army and an over-arching legal system. They socialise this element of responsibility
Nowhere did I, or anybody else, suggest it was all or nothing - taking such a line against what was actually said is pure strawman. Obviously there are usefully collectivist activities.It's not complex, either. The ideology of personal responsibility where possible and small government interfering as little as possible is just that.
Humans are biological, instinctive beings constrained by what developed into society and social responsibilities.
On other words, it's nature versus nurture.
My feel is that right wing politics fit our nature ideals, of survival of the fittest and looking after our own. The strongest will favour right wing, because they're generally given the freedom to exercise that survival of the fittest. If there's on steak on the table and 5 people vying for it, the right wing voter will want freedom to do whatever necessary to be the one who gets the steak.
Left wing politics suits those who may not do well under the principle of survival of the fittest. They will be sat at the same table, expecting 3 of the others to hold back the strongest, while he cuts up the steak and distributes it evenly to everyone around the table.
The best government is the one who finds the best balance between freedoms (nature) and protections (nuture).
On other words, it's nature versus nurture.
My feel is that right wing politics fit our nature ideals, of survival of the fittest and looking after our own. The strongest will favour right wing, because they're generally given the freedom to exercise that survival of the fittest. If there's on steak on the table and 5 people vying for it, the right wing voter will want freedom to do whatever necessary to be the one who gets the steak.
Left wing politics suits those who may not do well under the principle of survival of the fittest. They will be sat at the same table, expecting 3 of the others to hold back the strongest, while he cuts up the steak and distributes it evenly to everyone around the table.
The best government is the one who finds the best balance between freedoms (nature) and protections (nuture).
AJS- said:
speedy thrills
Is this a conservative ideology though?
That depends on your interpretation of the status quo since literally that's what it means to be a Conservative (that is opposing change and preserving the traditional). Of course because the Liberals and Labour first championed many social reforms they are seen as the progressive parties even though the policies they push are no longer a radical departure from convention.Is this a conservative ideology though?
To me the exclusive pursuit of narrow social and economic goals is the current fixation in politics. These things are important but the most important aspect of human existence still get overlooked, we are so busy fretting the details we are missing the big picture. Happiness and fulfilment are more important to people than unemployment rates or GDP growth. For years it was safe to assume both where connected (GDP growth would make people feel happier and more content) but I, and many others, feel there are enough exceptions to justify reassessing our political priorities.
After all the last government made wealthy people much wealthier but most of them still voted against that party. Now we have another government that started taxing the rich people more and they still aren't happy. Vice versa poor people. The point is their incomes are not driving voting habits, that well is dry no matter how much more politicians drill it...so stop and do something different.
speedy_thrills said:
AJS- said:
speedy thrills
Is this a conservative ideology though?
That depends on your interpretation of the status quo since literally that's what it means to be a Conservative (that is opposing change and preserving the traditional). Of course because the Liberals and Labour first championed many social reforms they are seen as the progressive parties even though the policies they push are no longer a radical departure from convention.Is this a conservative ideology though?
To me the exclusive pursuit of narrow social and economic goals is the current fixation in politics. These things are important but the most important aspect of human existence still get overlooked, we are so busy fretting the details we are missing the big picture. Happiness and fulfilment are more important to people than unemployment rates or GDP growth. For years it was safe to assume both where connected (GDP growth would make people feel happier and more content) but I, and many others, feel there are enough exceptions to justify reassessing our political priorities.
After all the last government made wealthy people much wealthier but most of them still voted against that party. Now we have another government that started taxing the rich people more and they still aren't happy. Vice versa poor people. The point is their incomes are not driving voting habits, that well is dry no matter how much more politicians drill it...so stop and do something different.
s off the populace, so should be minimised as much as possible to aid in the pursuit of happiness.AJS- said:
Use Psychology said:
the principle is that government/state should be as small as possible and the set of laws/restrictions on freedoms in any society should also be as small as possible.
Why though? Is that a good thing in itself or a means to a better outcome? Why is a smaller state a good thing?ks as long as someone else pays for it. Iv noticed a lot of left leaning individuals don't have any cars listed on thier profile, or very rarely anything 'tasty' , not forgetting this a driving forum. It's not so much that they have an ideology but that they constantly seek to stop others havin what I believe they want themselves. Or the very act of removing others ability to have that choice gives them pleasure. Its a lot about jealousy really, it's only natural to be envious of others but it shouldn't make you want to hurt thier success.
markcoznottz said:
Because its cheaper? Are you being deliberately obtuse?. This country makes social promises it can't afford, clever business minimises it's tax bill accordingly, can't say i blame them really. It's all about who pays ultimately, see the eu for that, they think a Europe wide state is the best thing since sliced bks as long as someone else pays for it.
Iv noticed a lot of left leaning individuals don't have any cars listed on thier profile, or very rarely anything 'tasty' , not forgetting this a driving forum. It's not so much that they have an ideology but that they constantly seek to stop others havin what I believe they want themselves. Or the very act of removing others ability to have that choice gives them pleasure. Its a lot about jealousy really, it's only natural to be envious of others but it shouldn't make you want to hurt thier success.
I'm not being obtuse. I'm trying to ignite and learn from a debate as to what the ideals of British conservatives actually are. Cheaper compared to socialism is not an ideal. It's a pragmatic considerationks as long as someone else pays for it. Iv noticed a lot of left leaning individuals don't have any cars listed on thier profile, or very rarely anything 'tasty' , not forgetting this a driving forum. It's not so much that they have an ideology but that they constantly seek to stop others havin what I believe they want themselves. Or the very act of removing others ability to have that choice gives them pleasure. Its a lot about jealousy really, it's only natural to be envious of others but it shouldn't make you want to hurt thier success.
Personal responsibility is part of an ideal, and I'm interested to see it featuring so strongly, but it doesn't strike me as something that would motivate me to get involved in building it. Responsibility in and of itself is something that socialists use as a carrot - we'll take responsibility for your education, healthcare and pension in exchange for your money today. It takes quite a mental leap to see responsibility as a good thing, and the necessary path to that is the ideological stepping stone of conservatism. To my mind that is that it's better to pay for something and thus have a degree of control than it is to receive it for free and have no meaningful input into it's delivery.
If the dig about not having My Garage updated was aimed at me, you're barking up the wrong tree completely. I've got friends with Astons and friends with 110CC 2 stroke Honda motorbikes, and it means nothing. I don't begrudge anyone any level of material success. I have a car I'm happy with, and I hope to have a better one in future.
turbobloke said:
Nowhere did I, or anybody else, suggest it was all or nothing - taking such a line against what was actually said is pure strawman. Obviously there are usefully collectivist activities.
It's not complex, either. The ideology of personal responsibility where possible and small government interfering as little as possible is just that.
So how far do you take it? Is it my responsibility to set out the boundaries of my land and defend them? If my neighbour proves unable to defend his, is it right that I annex his land? Is it my responsibility to offer a suitable punishment for transgression of my rights? It's not complex, either. The ideology of personal responsibility where possible and small government interfering as little as possible is just that.
Define possible. I'm healthy and earning a reasonable living, all told I could afford guns and security guards if needs be, so why should I pay for police? Yet in 20 years time who knows? Maybe I'll be earning a modest living, quite able to support myself on the condition that others respect my property rights and choose not to mug me. Am I a parasite then?
Yes I am deliberately being difficult here, because it is easily the weakest area of the British right. We can all see the gaping holes in socialism. We can point out the pragmatic and empirical flaws in their economic theories. But we can't advance an attractive, compelling alternative that motivates people to reject the sugary promises of politicians who see the public purse as the means to their end.
10PS
So does that make a bloody knife fight over the steak our driving ideology? I put forward the alternative idea that since I am picking up the tab, I will slice the steak 5 ways and take the juiciest and best part for myself. I'll do the best I can to make the other 4 pieces equal, but some may grumble. Or maybe I'll divide it up according to who contributes the most. I may even feel an overwhelming sense of noblese oblige and divide it evenly taking the worst part for myself.
The point of any system of interaction must surely be to put in place mechanisms to negate the violence and nastiness of the simple rule of the jungle. It might end up with the same division of resources, but no-one gets stabbed to death in the process. Otherwise why bother with a political movement at all? We return to the anarchy of the jungle where the biggest monkey gets the most bananas.
speedy thrills
Conservatism has been around long enough, and made enough headway to be an ideology in it's own right. It may be a more radical departure from the status quo than the socialist alternative without negating it's intrinsically conservative values.
It lies somewhere along the path of a small state, living communities, a functioning family unit and a healthy respect for existing traditions. But where do those boundaries lie?
I get the impression you would vote for Josef Stalin if he promised to land a man on Mars, which is admirable in it's own way but very unlikely for any UK government in the foreseeable future. If any it would probably be a Labour government who were prepared to expropriate the necessary financial and intellectual resources.
In the unlikely event of the tories asking me to do some spin doctoring I'd point out the following dichotomy:
- If libertarian idealism holds true then so should the following maxim: Reduction in government should lead to full employment for all.
- Everyone hates yuppies, not because they've got money but because showing off is vulgar to the UK psyche.
The above two statements need to be reconciled before any push towards libertarianism can be achieved.
The first statement is currently untrue because our education and benefits systems are geared to creating workers rather than entrepreneurs.
The second statement is something to be celebrated and worked with. I love the self deprecation of Only Fools and Horses, The Thick Of It and Red Dwarf because we see ourselves in the characters. Any attempt to increase the number of job providers necessarily requires the rehabilitation of entrepreneurs in popular culture, thus there needs to be a new yuppie whose life isn't about being a self centered egotistical tt.
To put this in practical terms you need:
Policy changes:
- Whatever is needed to support the job creators. Student loan type arrangements for young entrepreneurs. Introduce 'working pensions' as a reward for older people to mentor the young. Insert additional awesome policy here. Change school so that from 12+ pupils wear work clothes and parents are encouraged to give pocket money as pay rather than benefits.
Advertising 1:
Pick a group of people from 18 to 85, create a series showing the older generation talking about what they have achieved and cut it in to the younger generation talking about what they want to achieve. Show the continuity of life, show that respect for your elders is in fact respect for yourself.
Tagline - Doing for me is doing for you.
Advertising 2:
Pick people from the princes trust and other young job creators, have an advert that........[Official Notice. I have not been paid enough to think of an end to that sentence. Does involve making entrepreneurs cool though
]
Advertising 3:
Shoot a yuppie. Put him in the boot of an 80's M5 and push it off the white cliffs of Dover.
It's a powerful image that can be used for whatever association/disassociation you wish.
Note 1 - The UK is heavily segregated through age group, we need to stop thinking of people who are older/younger as different from ourselves. Grandad knew exactly what getting jiggy with it means so the yoof need to get over themselves.
Note 2 - The current tories want to reduce the public sector but have neither the nous or experience to know how to replace it. Example in point is the NHS, one of the most cash efficient and reliable medical services anywhere on the planet. Unlike the 'at all costs' libertarians here I and many other voters would like to see substantive evidence of a better system before we replace it.
Note 3
What do we want - Evidence based government.
When do we want it - After peer review.
- If libertarian idealism holds true then so should the following maxim: Reduction in government should lead to full employment for all.
- Everyone hates yuppies, not because they've got money but because showing off is vulgar to the UK psyche.
The above two statements need to be reconciled before any push towards libertarianism can be achieved.
The first statement is currently untrue because our education and benefits systems are geared to creating workers rather than entrepreneurs.
The second statement is something to be celebrated and worked with. I love the self deprecation of Only Fools and Horses, The Thick Of It and Red Dwarf because we see ourselves in the characters. Any attempt to increase the number of job providers necessarily requires the rehabilitation of entrepreneurs in popular culture, thus there needs to be a new yuppie whose life isn't about being a self centered egotistical t
t.To put this in practical terms you need:
Policy changes:
- Whatever is needed to support the job creators. Student loan type arrangements for young entrepreneurs. Introduce 'working pensions' as a reward for older people to mentor the young. Insert additional awesome policy here. Change school so that from 12+ pupils wear work clothes and parents are encouraged to give pocket money as pay rather than benefits.
Advertising 1:
Pick a group of people from 18 to 85, create a series showing the older generation talking about what they have achieved and cut it in to the younger generation talking about what they want to achieve. Show the continuity of life, show that respect for your elders is in fact respect for yourself.
Tagline - Doing for me is doing for you.
Advertising 2:
Pick people from the princes trust and other young job creators, have an advert that........[Official Notice. I have not been paid enough to think of an end to that sentence. Does involve making entrepreneurs cool though
]Advertising 3:
Shoot a yuppie. Put him in the boot of an 80's M5 and push it off the white cliffs of Dover.
It's a powerful image that can be used for whatever association/disassociation you wish.
Note 1 - The UK is heavily segregated through age group, we need to stop thinking of people who are older/younger as different from ourselves. Grandad knew exactly what getting jiggy with it means so the yoof need to get over themselves.
Note 2 - The current tories want to reduce the public sector but have neither the nous or experience to know how to replace it. Example in point is the NHS, one of the most cash efficient and reliable medical services anywhere on the planet. Unlike the 'at all costs' libertarians here I and many other voters would like to see substantive evidence of a better system before we replace it.
Note 3
What do we want - Evidence based government.
When do we want it - After peer review.
I wouldn't describe myself as a socialist and theres very few genuine socialists left really. Ken Livingstone and George Galloway are probably the most prominent self acclaimed socialists left standing. The far left ideal doesn't work. The 'Champagne socialists' as they're generally known often shoot down centre-right Conservatism and the current Government in particular over bankers, rich people and all the rest of it. The brutal reality is the far left regimes past and present have resulted in the biggest gulfs in income and living standards between the top and bottom in history. In North Korea - a genuine communist country - the poor are extremely poor and the rich are very rich. You could say the same about the old Soviet Union, Romania under Ceausescu etc
My ideals are around the centrist 'third way' due to neither flank ever having fixed everything. I dont believe in a small state just for small states sake, I believe in a state big enough to do what the state should do which is the debate we should have rather than argue about state size. I believe Government should plug the gaps the free market cannot plug and help people the free market left behind, like those who have illnesses so rare its unprofitable to make drugs for and those who's various conditions prevent them thriving in standard society.
I dont have an interest in over-taxing the rich to make them bleed - but I do want to get the most out of them as a group without scaring them off, which the 40% tax rate certainly seemed to do - my focus is on lowering the tax burden on those lower down with a high income tax threshold, low VAT and reducing other regressive forms of taxation to increase their chances of working their way up to maybe become rich one day themselves. I believe to fund the big state we need to embrace free market capitalism and the good it can bring, I couldnt fund the free healthcare and big state etc without the taxes paid by bankers in the City and we wouldnt have bankers in the City if those taxes were too high. Champagne Socialists are in essence rich people who berate the rest of the rich and claim to stick up 'for the poor' by pledging to tax the super rich higher but actually give none of those rewards to the poor they claim to support. Such condascending support smacks of wanting to keep the poor in their place, I want people at the bottom to have ambition to better themselves. Too many people seem content to remain on the bottom row and wait for a banker tax windfall, thats not the working class culture I grew up in.
I voted for New Labour in 2001 and 2005 but switched to the Tories in 2010 because Labour slipped back into their old trends of policies which actually hurt working people rather than help them, the very thing Tony Blair said in 1996 they had to stop doing. Take their 'war on the motorist' for instance, the agenda of people who dislike personal freedom and want everybody to travel in community when the hierarchy tells them to (ie bus timetables) which smacks more of communism than freedom. I want low fuel taxes because I want people on lower wages to be able to drive and have access to freedoms which were once the preserve of the rich. I believe the working class should actually go to work but actually get rewards for that, where as now we're in a trap where working brings nothing more than staying at home on state pay. How on earth did we get here? Thats not what I believe in at all.
Socialism is about keeping people exactly where a small group of people want them. I dont believe in that.
My ideals are around the centrist 'third way' due to neither flank ever having fixed everything. I dont believe in a small state just for small states sake, I believe in a state big enough to do what the state should do which is the debate we should have rather than argue about state size. I believe Government should plug the gaps the free market cannot plug and help people the free market left behind, like those who have illnesses so rare its unprofitable to make drugs for and those who's various conditions prevent them thriving in standard society.
I dont have an interest in over-taxing the rich to make them bleed - but I do want to get the most out of them as a group without scaring them off, which the 40% tax rate certainly seemed to do - my focus is on lowering the tax burden on those lower down with a high income tax threshold, low VAT and reducing other regressive forms of taxation to increase their chances of working their way up to maybe become rich one day themselves. I believe to fund the big state we need to embrace free market capitalism and the good it can bring, I couldnt fund the free healthcare and big state etc without the taxes paid by bankers in the City and we wouldnt have bankers in the City if those taxes were too high. Champagne Socialists are in essence rich people who berate the rest of the rich and claim to stick up 'for the poor' by pledging to tax the super rich higher but actually give none of those rewards to the poor they claim to support. Such condascending support smacks of wanting to keep the poor in their place, I want people at the bottom to have ambition to better themselves. Too many people seem content to remain on the bottom row and wait for a banker tax windfall, thats not the working class culture I grew up in.
I voted for New Labour in 2001 and 2005 but switched to the Tories in 2010 because Labour slipped back into their old trends of policies which actually hurt working people rather than help them, the very thing Tony Blair said in 1996 they had to stop doing. Take their 'war on the motorist' for instance, the agenda of people who dislike personal freedom and want everybody to travel in community when the hierarchy tells them to (ie bus timetables) which smacks more of communism than freedom. I want low fuel taxes because I want people on lower wages to be able to drive and have access to freedoms which were once the preserve of the rich. I believe the working class should actually go to work but actually get rewards for that, where as now we're in a trap where working brings nothing more than staying at home on state pay. How on earth did we get here? Thats not what I believe in at all.
Socialism is about keeping people exactly where a small group of people want them. I dont believe in that.
@martin84
I've read a few of your posts and would be intrigued to know your reaction to the following statement:
Many right wingers complain about entitlement culture (benefits) while entitling themselves to complete and full ownership of a company regardless of how much effort their employees put it.
Do you regard this as hypocrisy?
I've read a few of your posts and would be intrigued to know your reaction to the following statement:
Many right wingers complain about entitlement culture (benefits) while entitling themselves to complete and full ownership of a company regardless of how much effort their employees put it.
Do you regard this as hypocrisy?
Tartan Pixie
Seems like the Tories are representing your "ideology" anyway.
WhoseGeneration
No, but they have become bedfellows in opposition to socialism, and it seems to be a faultline splitting the conservative movement somewhat. Libertarian ideology is quite well understood, and it seems like a lot of the Tory right would be happy to apply it. Great.
But then there are tories who go on about morality, patriotism, culture and communities, law and order. These things do motivate people, and apparently motivate people to vote conservative. Yet the Conservative Party doesn't really seem to have any coherent ideology around what to do with these things.
martin84
I agree that what the state should do is fundamental to this, but so far as I could tell New Labour's answer to this seemed to be whatever they needed to do to win an election. Is there any guiding principle or any hard lines that wouldn't be crossed?
Tartan Pixie
If you start and build a business then you own 100% of it. You are entitled to it because you took the risk and made the investment to set it up. Is that controversial?
Most people who bemoan entitlement culture are getting at the apparent situation whereby people feel entitled to things without having to put anything in themselves. Being entitled to what you actually legitimately own is just basic property rights.
Seems like the Tories are representing your "ideology" anyway.
WhoseGeneration
No, but they have become bedfellows in opposition to socialism, and it seems to be a faultline splitting the conservative movement somewhat. Libertarian ideology is quite well understood, and it seems like a lot of the Tory right would be happy to apply it. Great.
But then there are tories who go on about morality, patriotism, culture and communities, law and order. These things do motivate people, and apparently motivate people to vote conservative. Yet the Conservative Party doesn't really seem to have any coherent ideology around what to do with these things.
martin84
I agree that what the state should do is fundamental to this, but so far as I could tell New Labour's answer to this seemed to be whatever they needed to do to win an election. Is there any guiding principle or any hard lines that wouldn't be crossed?
Tartan Pixie
If you start and build a business then you own 100% of it. You are entitled to it because you took the risk and made the investment to set it up. Is that controversial?
Most people who bemoan entitlement culture are getting at the apparent situation whereby people feel entitled to things without having to put anything in themselves. Being entitled to what you actually legitimately own is just basic property rights.
Edited by AJS- on Monday 30th April 05:56
davepoth said:
It's not the government's job to make the population happy. Libertarianism says the exact opposite: Government's role is to ps off the populace, so should be minimised as much as possible to aid in the pursuit of happiness.
See I think of happiness and contentment are the only reasons to have a government. Not so much that they "make" people happy but that they provide the structure for a society which allows all people to live without fear (like losing their job, falling ill or becoming the victim of a crime). People indirectly derive satisfaction and happiness from the services government distributes like law, education, healthcare, social security, infrastructure, research, military protection etc. The trick for government is to strike a balance between the extent of providing these services and the distribution model of the costs of these service.s off the populace, so should be minimised as much as possible to aid in the pursuit of happiness.The problem I can see with many extreme Libertarian ideals is that they essentially advocate a social regression in society. They fail to appreciate we don't live in a society where many people are completely self reliant even in small communities. Industrialisation raised the standard of living but it also destroyed those close communities of people where where dependent and reliant on each other. As industrialisation progressed we realised there was a need for collective actions at times and so a modern government emerged to fulfil those needs.
Now there are some ideals of Libertarianism I applaud such as women's rights or the rights of individuals to fair judicial process. However, like most people, I'd not benefit from extreme libertarianism.
AJS- said:
Following on from this thread where I correctly pointed out that Cameron has no real case to make for conservatism as a political ideology, I would love to hear PHers moral, intellectual and ideological arguments for a conservative-libertarian government.
Don't feel the need to chime in with our pressing need to cut the deficit - we all know that. Nor need you feel obliged to point out the obvious reality that having lower taxes than our neighbours attracts investment. It's obvious. In fact no need for "not", no need for negatives at all. No need even for pragmatism.
What is the ideal? What is the positive case for a right leaning government, such as many seem to desire but no-one seems able to express in a vernacular that appeals to the voter? What is your vision for Britain?
The problem with the question is the Cameron and the conservative party are just another brand of socialists. And we can hardly call this Government libertarian or they would start taking down all the cameras that labour put up.Don't feel the need to chime in with our pressing need to cut the deficit - we all know that. Nor need you feel obliged to point out the obvious reality that having lower taxes than our neighbours attracts investment. It's obvious. In fact no need for "not", no need for negatives at all. No need even for pragmatism.
What is the ideal? What is the positive case for a right leaning government, such as many seem to desire but no-one seems able to express in a vernacular that appeals to the voter? What is your vision for Britain?
10 Pence Short said:
Humans are biological, instinctive beings constrained by what developed into society and social responsibilities.
On other words, it's nature versus nurture.
My feel is that right wing politics fit our nature ideals, of survival of the fittest and looking after our own. The strongest will favour right wing, because they're generally given the freedom to exercise that survival of the fittest. If there's on steak on the table and 5 people vying for it, the right wing voter will want freedom to do whatever necessary to be the one who gets the steak.
Left wing politics suits those who may not do well under the principle of survival of the fittest. They will be sat at the same table, expecting 3 of the others to hold back the strongest, while he cuts up the steak and distributes it evenly to everyone around the table.
The best government is the one who finds the best balance between freedoms (nature) and protections (nuture).
The thing is, if we all work together towards mutually beneficial goals then we are ALL better off. If on the other hand we each concentrate on ourselves either ignoring or working to the detriment of, others then "society" as a whole is worse off. On other words, it's nature versus nurture.
My feel is that right wing politics fit our nature ideals, of survival of the fittest and looking after our own. The strongest will favour right wing, because they're generally given the freedom to exercise that survival of the fittest. If there's on steak on the table and 5 people vying for it, the right wing voter will want freedom to do whatever necessary to be the one who gets the steak.
Left wing politics suits those who may not do well under the principle of survival of the fittest. They will be sat at the same table, expecting 3 of the others to hold back the strongest, while he cuts up the steak and distributes it evenly to everyone around the table.
The best government is the one who finds the best balance between freedoms (nature) and protections (nuture).
In the above example the outcomes could be as follows;
Right wing voter gets s
t kicked out of him by the others who are hungry (French revolution)Left wing voters all go half hungry on rotten steak due to inefficiencies of 5 year plan to divide up Steak.
Strange thread this, but interesting nonetheless. Is it not the case that most political ideologies are dead in the water, as globalisation has forced the lines to blur? Pragmatism has won the day, despite what most Daily Mail readers think, Labour is not a socialist party when in power any more than the Conservatives are true tto their own ideals.
wollowizard said:
The problem with the question is the Cameron and the conservative party are just another brand of socialists. And we can hardly call this Government libertarian or they would start taking down all the cameras that labour put up.
That's my point really. They're notionally conservative, but what does that actually mean?It clearly meant something to Thatcher and she forcefully argued the case for a small state and a market economy being better morally as well as economically. The modern Conservative party seems to miss this entirely, and just focus on the relative economic efficiency of putting the brakes on Labour's excess.
How can they be conservative when they don't really know what it means?
Blue62 said:
Strange thread this, but interesting nonetheless. Is it not the case that most political ideologies are dead in the water, as globalisation has forced the lines to blur? Pragmatism has won the day, despite what most Daily Mail readers think, Labour is not a socialist party when in power any more than the Conservatives are true tto their own ideals.
We are where we are because, based on our current needs/wants/attitudes this is where most voters want to be. There is little difference between TB and DC because they have identified where the majority of voters are "least upset" and they have moved their parties to that area. I would suggest that that is the main reason why GB lost the election (apart from being tainted by the recession) - he was/is a Socialist unlike TBBlue62 said:
Strange thread this, but interesting nonetheless. Is it not the case that most political ideologies are dead in the water, as globalisation has forced the lines to blur? Pragmatism has won the day, despite what most Daily Mail readers think, Labour is not a socialist party when in power any more than the Conservatives are true tto their own ideals.
I don't really buy that. It's usually used as a round about way of saying socialism has failed as an economic system, but it doesn't really impact on having a political ideology to underpin decision making, unless you drive it to a wild conclusion of government being unable to raise any taxation at all, hence disappearing in the face of fierce global competition.A nice idea, but a few centuries off IMO.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff