Oceania There should be NO Dual Citizenship

Right wing = totalitarianism...and that is pretty individualistic for the leader...

Interesting statement.

So Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, Lenin were all right wing I am to assume?

 

Taxes impede the economy! And so does monopolies.

You are talking about two totally different, unrelated concepts here. Taxes are a necessary evil. No one wants to pay them but it's necessary so we can have thigns like roads and schools etc.

If you want to go to a country where there is no governemnt to dictate anything, may I direct you to Somalia. I'm sure you would enjoy it there. Maybe you could date one of the daughters of the local warlords?

 

Hah...amusing...
I think it's all right wing, really, as, say, 'communist' leaders (such as Stalin) were pretty much dictators in their own right. I'm not too sure about the others, but I'd argue that for Stalin at least.
Didn't Stalin have Lenin killed, anyway? And as for China (as it is 'communist')...well, it appears very dictator-like to me...ie. right wing.

If it's confusing, then it's just cos' I can't explain it well enough...

 

Marvin, a Government simply means a bunch of people who have the monopoly on force and can therefore do whatever they like.

Democracy is just a smarter way of doing it, even though it's not really democracy. You see, once elected, the Government can do what it likes, unless it violates the constitution then they have to do a referendum (not that the Australian constitution gives us much rights, most of the constitution just spells out the powers of government).

Of course there are two things that curb government power:

#Getting voted out at the next election
#Over taxing to the point where they lose revenue

And that's about it.

 

Laissez faire is dead (at least in this country), because the lack of government intervention meant that businesses could screw out consumers and employees here there and everywhere.

Wrong! Government intervention actually screws consumers more then a business could. Because the Government inhibits competition and restrains markets which, according the the laws of economics, results in higher prices for the consumer. For example, the Government subsidises the sugar industry to supposedly 'protect Australian industries', but what it really does is flood our market with overpriced sugar, and makes these industries reliant on Government protection, which makes them inefficient. Sometimes farmers even deliberately don't produce so they can get the subsidy. It creates its own industry. And who do you think is paying for all of this - the taxpayer.

The government needs to intervene both state and federally, otherwise we'd have exploitation of the work force and so on.

Wrong again! Government intervention in labour markets such as the 'youth wage' actually prevent a lot of people from getting work. And employer's only look to hire young people to get cheap, unskilled labour. Things like the minimum wage and superannuation actually cause unemployment by making hiring workers more expensive. Government mandated wage increases cause wage-price spirals. Income tax takes away over 20% of the worker's wage. Centrelink punishes people for taking work by taking away their welfare, thus giving people more impetus for staying on welfare, because they earn less by working.

I'd rather be more case-specific but there's a lot more where that came from.

I mkean, why else have all these acts been introduced if not to prevent unfair business practices?

Two things: money and power.

As far as I was aware, left wing = socialist and communist, and right wing = totalitarian, individualist, and capitalistic...and while it may be over used, it is still useful in explaining politics of countries and the like...

You have no idea. Capitalism means private property, which is arrived at through free markets and voluntary exchange. Every Government out there contradicts these principles so you can't say that any dictator, government, warlord or monarch is a laissez faire capitalist. These agencies use force, coercion and the acquisition of others property.

So don't make stupid, ignorant statements such as 'Hitler was a capitalist'.

 

Book you should read called Jennifer Government, by Max Barry (an Aussie). Very interesting, and funny, look at a totally free market.

As a spoiler, we Americans own Australia's ass. Newly acquired economic territory.




b4k4^2

 

Ah, a work of fiction, I see?

E_S

 

Detonating-Rabbit, I was making a point, and that is that left-wing and right-wing are insufficient descriptors of political alignment, and are totally subject to local political trends. To say that right-wing is authoritarian would be to label a lot of people on this board to be authoritarian in the extreme sense!

For example, right-wing in Australia means Nationals, Liberals, and some of Labor, and left wing refers to Democrats, greens, and some of Labor. But in Germany 1933, left and right would have different meanings, and they would again in the former Soviet Union.

My $0.02

 

Nah, this guy's just looking into the future.

NRA and the Police contract out to each other as private security forces, people are killed for their new Nikes in order to drive up the price, schools are run by McDonalds and other private businesses, etc.

I liked the book. Not long, but funny. Most of it takes place in Australia actually.




b4k4^2

 

Yep, alright. Agreed, Marvin, I can see where you're coming from.

Alright, Nyder don't get too up yourself over nothing. As far as I was aware (and was taught in yr 12 Legal), laissez faire meant a market place where there was little to no government intervention. This meant that there were very few laws in place to protect consumers and so forth in business transactions and contractual agreements. That was my understanding. I am coming at this purely from a consumer standpoint, which is what we were taught throughout year 11 and 12.
And I by no means stated that Hitler was a capitalist, and I said nothing about laissez faire capitalists. When I said right wing, I did not mean that authoritarians, capitalists, and individualists were all of the same people. They're entirely different things, I understand.

 

To expand...when I say left and right wing, I am meaning it purely in the stereotypical sense. But I understand that right and left wing mean different things according to the historic and social and political context in whch they are used. That much Marvin pointed out
I understand that. So, when I am talking about individualists, authoritarians, and capitalists (from my basic understanding), I am using them in the sense that they are completely different concepts to each other. I'm not stating that right wing people (in the generalising sense) are all authoritarian, individualistic, capitalists.
And yes. The terms are over used. I could describe a lot of people on these boards as right wing, but would I mean that their views are, say, leaning towards the Nationals or the Liberals, or would I mean that they are stereotypical, fascist rednecks?

 

Marvin said:

Taxes are a necessary evil.

Karl Marx said (out of his 10 point plan in the Communist Manifesto):

Institute a heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Marvin said:

No one wants to pay them but it's necessary so we can have thigns like roads and schools etc.

Karl Marx said:

Nationally centralize the control of communication and transportation by the federal government.

Free public education for all children...

 

I'm not accusing you of being a communist, Marvin, but you must concede that you do agree with Marx on some things....

 

Yes, I agree with Karl Marx that we need roads to drive on, and need schools to send kids to.

We have that at the moment, and live in neither a purely communist nor purely anarchical society (not the hedley Bull definition of AS).

 

Marvin, Marx wasn't arguing the need for schools or roads.

He was saying, GET THE GOVERNMENT TO CONTROL THEIR PRODUCTION!


Marvin... Marx... even the first three letters are the same! [face_shocked]

 

Nyder, would it surprise you to know that Adam Smith advocate somethign very similar?

It is common sense. Smith argued that the governemnt should step in to provide services that everyone needs. Everyone needs hospitals, schools and roads for heavens sake!

 

I understand that. So, when I am talking about individualists, authoritarians, and capitalists (from my basic understanding), I am using them in the sense that they are completely different concepts to each other. I'm not stating that right wing people (in the generalising sense) are all authoritarian, individualistic, capitalists.
And yes. The terms are over used. I could describe a lot of people on these boards as right wing, but would I mean that their views are, say, leaning towards the Nationals or the Liberals, or would I mean that they are stereotypical, fascist rednecks?

Seig heil!!

Hehe just kidding

Wait till you get to uni...'left-wing' and 'right-wing' are usually used as insults betwen them! [face_shocked]

 

Wait till you get to uni...'left-wing' and 'right-wing' are usually used as insults betwen them!

Same sorta thing here in the States, though usually "Liberal" (meaning left-wing [I know, I know, it embarrasses me that my countrymen are sometimes dolts who can't understand basic political vocabulary]) is considered the worst insult, while "Conservative" (meaning right-wing) seems to be more of a positive thing...unless your country's Muslim, in which case Conservative = Extremist.

*sigh*

Good times.




b4k4^2

 

It is interesting the way Americans use the term Liberal! Of course, it comes from classical liberalism advocated by Locke, Smith and Co and corresponds much more with conservative politics in US and Australia!!!!

 

Well, Americans are all liberal, just strains thereof. They're probably the closest thing to a national experiment in Millsian liberalism as you can get.

though these days people who basically subscribe to classical liberalism and utilitarianism, like myself, are your centrists.

E_S

 

Well, Americans are all liberal, just strains thereof. They're probably the closest thing to a national experiment in Millsian liberalism as you can get.

According to Nyder, what you describe is communism!

 

Classical liberalism is not a clear ideology, because it is different depending on who the person is. Thomas Jefferson was a classical liberal and he opposed democracy and the income tax (or so he was quoted as).

Libertarianism is supposed to be close, but libertarians do nothing but argue so it's hard to tell exactly what it means.

Of course there are idiots out there who claim to be 'anarchist communists', 'socialist libertarians', 'democratic socialists', 'state capitalists', 'conservative liberals', etc.

KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPIDS!!!!

All of these fence sitters are just going to be impaled on a fence post. Either you believe in collectivism/altruism (which requires state control) or private property rights absolutely.

Sorry, Marv, you're a communist.

As for you Ender_Sai - a 'classical liberal centrist'? What the hell are you on?

 

Acutally, libertarians are "reconstructed" (**** I hate postmodernism) liberals; that is, they subscribe to the first generation liberal ideology of James Mill, whereas modern liberals subscribe to the notion of John Stuart Millsian liberalism.

And yes, I'm aware that liberalism isn't clearly, hence why I implied that the Democrats and Republicans are both liberals.

E_S

 

Comrades Ender_Sai, MarvinTheMartian, Detonating_Rabbit, and Jansons_Funny_Twin, you are all good comrades, I welcome yuo all to my revolution. Poster of the world untie!

 

Kiss my a$$