[Repeat to Fade]

I've always considered myself on the left of politics. I agree with universal health care, taxing the rich at a greater percentage than the poor, free education, okay with mass immigration and I'm very supportive of green policies. I even disagreed with the Iraq war when it started

This I think puts me on the left, but then again I know support the war and would actually want to see an escalation not an exit strategy, I support Israel and while I'm not for monopolies I have nothing against globalisation itself.

So where exactly would that place me and more to the point what are the dividing features in modern politics?

[Fasces]

Liberal left.

On a tangent, does no one else find it astounding that the liberal right the only ideology to oppose universal healthcare?

[SomeRandom]

Liberal, I'd say. In Britain you'll know that universal healthcare, progressive taxation and public education are all accepted, and therefore relatively non-defining positions, so it's really your other positions that are important. Your support for the Iraq War, Israel and further interventions on that front would put you on the right. However, passionate support for green policies is rare from those on the right, so I'd judge your motives for accepting mass immigration as the defining factor - the libertarian right can sometimes profess support for unregulated immigration, such is their support for the free-market. Is it altruistic?

All of that would still put you on the left here anyway, where anyone even slightly left of Thatcher is considered "centrist", "centre-left" or "progressive".

[BassHole]

so I'd judge your motives for accepting mass immigration as the defining factor

This is always a strange issue in the UK, particularly among the left. Their position seems to reverse at the drop of a hat. One minute, opposition to mass immigration is "racist", while the next it is simply "protecting British jobs". I don't really define myself as left or right, since I have many conflicting opinions, but in principle, I would consider mass immigration to be beneficial. However, when (as seems to be happening now) the country becomes overcrowded, with a surplus of labour power, that is when it becomes a problem. This is why parties like the BNP are ridiculous, because they seem to believe that the ethnic makeup of immigrants is the problem, rather than the larger effects on state funds etc.

Where do you stand?

[Repeat to Fade]

I don't believe in surplus labour for a start. Does any other country in the world suffer from the affliction of too many people? We're certainly not over crowded either, that's always a claim that irks me as having no statistical basis at all.

Then we get some lovely facts like immigrants earning more, paying more tax and taking less out of the system as whole and one really starts to question what all the fuss is about.

[DanDaMan]

Liberal, I'd say. In Britain you'll know that universal healthcare, progressive taxation and public education are all accepted, and therefore relatively non-defining positions, so it's really your other positions that are important.

More farcical dogmatic positioning that makes no sense.
Using YOUR logic you could also require 99% taxation and mandatory military conscription for 10 years and one month a year for life and call it "non-defining".

[Cartertonian]

anyone even slightly left of Thatcher is considered "centrist", "centre-left" or "progressive".

Thatcher? By PoFo standards she was a raving Commie...wasn't she?

Ask kindly old Uncle Dan 'DaMan' McCarthy, here...

[Repeat to Fade]

DDM it's non-defining because it is the accepted norm. You can't decide right from left on issues that are accepted. Even the far right here don't have an issue with the NHS. It's not arbitrary.

[DanDaMan]

DDM it's non-defining because it is the accepted norm. You can't decide right from left on issues that are accepted. Even the far right here don't have an issue with the NHS. It's not arbitrary.

I'm just pointing out that it is arbitrary. If everyone got 50 lashes a week would that be "arbitrary" to someone entering the country?

progressive taxation

Would that be unimportant to a millionaire CEO moving to a country? I think not.

[Repeat to Fade]

If everyone got 50 lashes a week would that be "arbitrary" to someone entering the country?

Unless you are going to try and discuss some kind of universal definition of left and right then a foreigners culture have little relevance.

The NHS is universally accepted and so does't define left and right.

Kinda like not setting up death camps. Everyone is agreed it would be a pretty shitty idea. So you're saying your anti-death camp doesn't distinguish you from some kind of limp-wristed lefty or hawkish right winger.

And someone coming from somewhere where death camps are rife doesn't change that accepted fact.

[DanDaMan]

The NHS is universally accepted and so does't define left and right.

It does for a Libertarian (American) on the right side opposite Statists and totalitarians. This is because the State forcefully takes money from you and removes much of your economic freedom and hands it to your neighbor so he can go to an NHS hospital. What we call "wealth redistribution" or Robin Hood theft.

[Repeat to Fade]

It does for a Libertarian (American) on the right side opposite Statists and totalitarians.

But I'm not from America, so that definition of left and right hardly applies. I'm also not from China so their definition doesn't apply to me either.

Again unless you want to construct some kind of universal definition then you have to accept geographic boundaries when discussing left and right. And within my geographic area the NHS is seen as universally a good thing.

Also to clear up your ignorance; totalitarianism isn't a left thing. Plenty of right wing totalitarian regimes out there.

This is because the State forcefully takes money from you and removes much of your economic freedom and hands it to your neighbor so he can go to an NHS hospital.

It takes some of my money to pay for certain stuff. That stuff is decided upon by a democratically elected government. Yours does the same. Except people don't go bankrupt in my country for getting sick. Which seems a fair deal. You and you ilk don't seem to give a shit as long as you have more money in your pocket. You like to call this extra money freedom.

It is a puzzle why in America the two terms have become so confused.

[DanDaMan]

Also to clear up your ignorance; totalitarianism isn't a left thing. Plenty of right wing totalitarian regimes out there.

Then your "left & right" is meaningless since there is no opposites in your political spectrum of opposites.
Basic 5th grade science dictates you use empirical methods on a spectrum of opposites and place all totalitarians on one side.
What you are doing is measuring farcical DOGMA/superstition and erroneously ending up with two totalitarians as opposites.
That, in no way, speaks of common or logical scientific sense.
You might as well throw down chicken bones and "read" them for your analysis of politics.

[Repeat to Fade]

What you are doing is measuring farcical DOGMA and erroneously ending up with two totalitarians as opposites.

It's hardly farcical, the extremes of both end up in totalitarian regimes. I know it's nice and convenient for you to try and claim that all totalitarianism regimes are nasty lefty's but that is just your dogma.

Basic 5th grade science dictates you use empirical methods on a spectrum of opposites and place all totalitarians on one side.

You see your problem is not just that you never really understood basic science but you also confused it with basic politics.

That, in no way, speaks of common or logical scientific sense.

And why......?

You might as well throw down chicken bones and "read" them for your analysis of politics.

Could be worse, you could use someone's twisted and retarded political dogma with no relevance to accepted definitions or history.

[Rei Murasame]

totalitarians

That is a totally useless word anyway because your ideology is also totalitarian in its own way, in that you use Homo economicus to explain almost every facet of human existence, and one of the functions of neoliberalism is to transform as many public issues as possible into self-help issues that are presumably to be solved by 'rational' humans. Essentially you want to mould human behaviour so that it will be more compatible with your idea of how a market should be.

[DanDaMan]

Quote:
What you are doing is measuring farcical DOGMA and erroneously ending up with two totalitarians as opposites.

It's hardly farcical, the extremes of both end up in totalitarian regimes. I know it's nice and convenient for you to try and claim that all totalitarianism regimes are nasty lefty's but that is just your dogma.

By your own words, I'm not using dogma since I do not split totalitarians to opposite sides. What I do is use FACTS. And in science all totalitarians are on one side of a scale of opposites.
What is the total opposite of a totalitarian oligarchy... Anarchy. No government at all.
What form of government would be the the farthest away from totalitarianism and next to anarchy... Libertarianism.
This is basic 5th grade science.
Examine this....

The lower portion would be similar to government activity. At the far LEFT (edit) we have a high frequency of regulation on the individual (totalitarianism) and on the right we have very little regulation and constraints on ones liberty.
Just like totalitarians, the X-rays and gamma rays kill.

[PBVBROOK]

^^



DDM Made a joke.

Then your "left & right" is meaningless since there is no opposites in your political spectrum of opposites.

In practice there are no political opposites.

Basic 5th grade science dictates you use empirical methods on a spectrum of opposites and place all totalitarians on one side

What do you know of fifth grade math?

[Repeat to Fade]

DDM you seem to be on the wrong forum. This is the politics forum, I think you are looking for the physics.

I know it might make it easier to understand for those that find it difficult but.... physics and politics are not the same, they are very very different.

But for fun how about choosing..... PE or biology next time you want to try and explain something in a flawed and ignorant way.

You also don't seem to understand the difference between left and right.

At the far right we have a high frequency of regulation on the individual (totalitarianism) and on the right we have very little regulation and constraints on ones liberty.

Nice of you to admit your error and accept the commonly accepted concept of left and right.

What form of government would be the the farthest away from totalitarianism and next to anarchy... Libertarianism.

No totalitarianism is the result of both extremes. Maybe if you had a greater hold of anything beyond 5th grade science this wouldn't be so hard for you to grasp.

[DanDaMan]

Edit
Woops, apologies for the double post.

[DanDaMan]

DDM you seem to be on the wrong forum. This is the politics forum, I think you are looking for the physics.

Um, this forum prides itself on intellectual arguments based on facts. Farcical dogma is the antitheses of that. I'm not here to denigrate the intellectual integrity of those that post here with farcical superstition, when it comes to this subject.