The basic difference between those who lean to the Right and those who lean to the Left is politics is, in my opinion, the need to control others. Leftists often use phrases like "design the society", "influence choices", "control the free market" and so on. Rightists more often use phrases like "release from the grip of government", "set people and enterprises free", "increase peoples freedom" and so on (or am I wrong?). I see very little difference in modern-day Leftists and old-fashioned communists and socialists because the basic underlying way of thinking is the same: Control of others and design of society. Some might think that's a big simplification. Doesn't the modern day Leftist celebrate the free market and free choices? Doesn't he share the Rightist's doubts about too much State-control over people and companies? Yes and no, but the theme is still "to control and design".
But there is another fundamental difference between those who lean to the Right and those who lean to the Left in politics, and that's the ideological foundation on which the ideas and opinions stand on. How can it be justified through logic and reason that the State has permission to interfere with people's choices and the free market? I'm not talking about the State's "right" to stop violence, fraud and assaults, but the State's "permission" to transfer money from one to another, to prohibit certain consumption, behavior and choice of lifestyle, and to limit "dangerous" speech and activities. How can the Leftist justify a State-operated, tax-funded welfare system given that free, consenting adults have permission to control their own bodies and property? Or is the condition "given that free, consenting adults have permission to control their own bodies and property" not one which the Leftist is aware of or shows respect for?
I really think the Leftist cannot reasonable argue for his views on the basis of sound logic and reason. I think the Leftist doesn't care about the individual and his unlimited freedom of choice and behavior as such, but more about how to form society into some given frame. The Leftist may say he believes each individual should be able to make his own choices and decide how to run his own life, but in reality this doesn't hold. I think in reality the Leftist doesn't care if he's violating the rights of individuals as long as he has a clear conscience and a goal for his society-shaping.
But maybe logic and reason isn't so important when it comes to politics. The mathematician has to prove each point in his argument by using well-founded, most-likely-absolutely-true axioms and other proven statements and sentences. Maybe politicians are the engineer who "adjusts" the math to reality, allowing some things to float a little from the absolute truth so as to fit the "real world" better. Maybe the tolerance is even greater. Maybe the politician should be allowed to decide, design and manipulate without any concern for the proven, logical points of thinking. That's how I see the Leftist: He only needs to say what he feels, but not what is true or logically right.
Unfortunately, I can't live with that mind-process. I'm not a Leftist.
3 comments:
Þetta er framhald á umræðu um grein hér neðar á síðunni: (veit ekki hvort þú lest svo langt niður)
-----------------------------
Þarf ég að stafa hlutina?
Bifreiðaeign og olíubrennsla eru ekki gróðabatterí, en það eru bifreiðasala og olíumiðlun hins vegar.
GWB á fleiri góða að en stálkalla og olíujöfra, meðal hans stærstu bakhjarla eru einmitt BNA-lenskir bifreiðaframleiðendur. Er einhver hissa á því að hann skuli ekki samþykkja mengunarhamlandi lög heima fyrir? Að hann hafni Kyoto? Ekki ég!
Pointið er það að á síðustu og verstu, þar sem upplýsingaflæðið og -aðgengið er gífurlegt, hvort sem er í gegnum internet eða aðra fjölmiðla, þarf sem aldrei fyrr að sía það sem maður lætur ofan í sig af fróðleik, því maður veit hreinlega aldrei hver sponsorar heimildirnar.
Atriði eins og Global warming er sérstaklega hættulegt, því maður getur búist við því að rannsóknarniðurstöður séu útvatnaðar (af þeim sem geta grætt á því að ekki séu settar reglugerðir) eða ýktar (af þeim sem geta hagnast á því að ýta undir ótta fólks.
Það er því ekkert grín að vera upplýstur!
PS: Þér hérmeð formlega boðið í kaffi/bjór/... meðan á íslandsdvöl stendur. Hafa samband í 8201050.
Já, stundum tharf ad hafa í huga ad sumar rannsóknir eru mengadar af fjármagni og adrar af ofstæki en ég held ad flestar innihaldi bara hóflegt magn af hvoru tveggja.
Annars fannst mér - "hægrimanninum" - skemmtilegt ad sjá thátt í danska ríkissjónvarpinu - "vinstrisinnad" fyrirbæri - um gródurhúsaáhrifin thar sem thau voru mikid til dregin í efa - "hægrisinnad" sjónarmid - af bandarískum háskólamønnum - "vinstrisinnud" klíka. Svona er nú gaman ad lifa.
Hversu vinstrisinnuð klíka háskólamenn (BNA-verskir) eru orðið veit ég ekki ... það er víst ekkert til orðið sem heita óháðar rannsóknir við þarlenda skóla, og hvers sinnis sem menn eru, þykir mér það miður.
Post a Comment