Those on the political Right often seem to have curious opinions about what the "Left" believes.
Well I have no qualms accepting the label Leftist for myself. I can't speak for others, but here's a list of things that I believe:

1. Individuals should take responsibility for their own actions, learn from their mistakes, and be rewarded for their achievement
2. Equality of opportunity should always be strived for, but equality of outcome is not desirable for its own sake
3. Market economies are a force for good, and admirably capable of innovation, creativity and wealth generation
4. The rich getting richer does not mean the poor are getting poorer
5. Economic growth is worthwhile
6. Many people have irrational concerns about environmental damage and the health risks of technology
7. Freedom of speech should not be curtailed in order to avoid offending minority groups
8. An overly generous welfare state is not desirable
9. Governments are often inefficient and frequently make bad decisions
10. Government intervention into market forces often results in unwanted outcomes

Now, I'll freely admit that those statements, in their bare form, do not make me sound very Leftist at all, but that's because all of them need to be carefully qualified. Now I’ve already written out a long essay doing just that, but before I post it (it’s 800 words), I wonder how many self-confessed lefties here do actually disagree with any of the above points? And by disagree I don’t mean "Yes, but...", I mean "That’s wrong!". Also, how do those who align themselves more with a right-wing philosophy react to claims that the above beliefs are not necessarily incompatible with a left-wing philosophy?

the libertarians are down the hall, they'll smile and welcome you.

'the left' are a lot of things, but they share one characteristic here in oz, they all believe their fairy godmother will take care of them. this is necessary, as they are uniformly dim, ignorant, and passive. if fg doesn't care, they are cooked.

alas, she was bought by sammy plutocrat long ago, pauly politician pimped her for an office and a white car.

I've always had trouble telling my right from my left. I would have to stop, think, and concentrate... until my wise mum told me, "Dear it's easy... you bless yourself with your right hand."

So what does that say about me?

Numbers 5 and 6. Hi Wizofaus. You're not trolling for Johnny Howard are you?

http://www.highanddry.com.au/extract.cfm

"10. Government intervention into market forces often results in unwanted outcomes."

Yes, but for whom, Wizofaus?

7 out of 10. Not bad.

I regard myself as neither 'right' nor 'left' politically, but I'm quite sure that members of the OLO Right would regard me as 'Left'. Having said that, I agree with items 1,2,6,7,9 and 10 unreservedly.

The rest I might agree with, but with various qualifications.

You are not from the true left, maybe you are from the new left, I agree with every point.

Apart from DEMOS whom I'm not entirely sure about, I would classify all the posters who have replied so far as generally "left-wing" inclined, based on what I've read of their posting history.

Dickie, re 5, 6, & 10:

5. Economic growth is worthwhile - but only as long as it means that quality of life (not just material standard of living) is improving for everyone. The main benefit I see to the increase of material wealth is that it gives us the capacity to better protect ourselves against natural disasters, including eventually far-out ones like asteroid strikes. It's also necessary if we want to follow ambitions such as space colonisation. But note that these require substantial "collective" wealth - not individual wealth.

6. My position is to trust the scientists when they warn of particular threats - probability-wise they are the most likely to have it right. In that sense, I'm not worried about technologies such as nuclear power or GM crops - only the risk of them ending up in the wrong hands, but that's true of many technologies. Scientists overwhelming agree that species extinction, soil degradation, and global warming are real problems, and it would seem foolish, having not devoted my life to studying such phenomenon, to claim I know better. Where scientists aren't so much help is recommending solutions, which requires a broader expertise. There will always be cases where a particular activity causes real harm, but preventing it (especially when you can only realistically prevent it in your own backyard) causes more harm.

10. Intervention may go wrong on occasions (in ways that make everyone worse off), but without government regulation and occasional intervention, I don't believe large-scale markets could function well for very long: market failures are very real, and in many cases the consequences can be literally fatal. Unless you're opting for anarcho-capitalism, governments will always be involved in markets one way or another (through taxes, etc.), so it's critical that government strives to act as responsibility as possible - the solution to bad government is good government, not necessarily "less government".

CJ, I'm interested in how you feel about the other points. I've already clarified my views on 5 & 10 above, so here's my "qualifications" on points 3, 4 & 8:

3. I avoided the term "free market". Markets can never be truly "free", as per my points on #10. above.
Further, the big danger with market economies is that they have the capacity to reward behaviour that may be profitable in the short-term to a few, but are long-term damaging to the majority. The point of regulation should be to keep this effect to a minimum.

4. Most people who become rich do so by creating wealth, hence "growing the pie", making more available for everybody. Even in cases where people become rich by creating very little wealth themselves (e.g. speculators), they are unlikely
to be having much effect on the poorest, who don't generally buy what speculators sell. (One counter-example: pokies operators!)
However while it's not a *necessary* outcome of the "rich getting richer", the poor very well may be getting poorer, even if only relatively poorer. Increasing relative poverty is a problem, as it can lead to social unrest, and hinders the opportunities available to the poorest to get ahead.

8. An overly generous welfare state is one that encourages individuals to depend on it, and is clearly not desirable. However this is far preferable to an insufficiently funded or overly restrictive welfare system that punishes those genuinely in need of help far more than those determined to leach off others. By all accounts, Australia's welfare system has turned into the latter in recent years.

All of those points are valid to anyone with a sense of integrity. I think you mean ALP when you say new Labor. The real Labor Party & it's noble doctrine was assigned to the history books in the early 70's.
ALP- acronym -Academics, Leeches, Preposterous

Wizofus, you’re right to admit that your statements, in their bare form, don’t make you sound very ‘Leftist’ (sic) at all because they need to be carefully qualified. Moreover, at least three of your beliefs (6, 9,10 and probably 3) are mere factual statements and their opposites are also true - neither ‘leftists’ nor ‘rightists’ would disagree.

• 1: e.g. a rape victim too intimidated to report? a person who agrees to euthanasia? a fraudster rewarded for achievement?
• 2: ‘equality of opportunity’ and ‘equality of outcome’ require definition – as do ‘strived for’; and what if you left out ‘for its own sake’?
• 3: antithesis is just as supportable, depending on context
• 4: plain wrong in relativities – infinite wealth is a myth
• 5: motherhood - unless you say for whom and why
• 6: antithesis is just as supportable
• 7: context is critical
• 8: define ‘overly’, ‘generous’ and ‘desirable’
• 9: antithesis is just as supportable
• 10: antithesis is just as supportable.

However, I agree with your introductory comment that ‘Those on the political Right often seem to have curious opinions about what the "Left" believes’.

Perhaps you have bent too far in the direction of ordinariness to illustrate your ‘Leftist’ beliefs in order to make a perfectly valid point that many politically reactionary and conservative OLO posters go off half-cocked when using the label ‘Leftist’.

Maybe it really is time to call a halt to the specious use of ‘left-right labels? The idea that there is a consistent continuum of political and social beliefs on change and order in society might have been useful once. I think such a continuum now clouds the issues and its use just encourages people to be intellectually lazy and sometimes dishonest – they label (libel) people and fail to address the content of the argument.

I am a Leftie and proud to say that. It took me 15 years of being a member of the ALP before I joined a faction. The reason I chose the Left was that I observed the bloody minded mentality of the Right running roughshod over party members with their win at all costs way. A fair go for all including members of the minority including females of the party. Females are being left behind in this party, perhaps WWW party may get a better run next election! (What Women Want party)
People of integrity are being ignored.

By the way, one controversial point I'll throw in to the debate - the more I read, the more I'm convinced that by far and away the most terrible and tragic case of government intervention into market forces gone wrong is the criminalisation of recreational drugs. A classic of case of where, yes, accepted, many drugs have the capability of significant harm, and there are social costs incurred in allowing their widespread use, but where the harm caused by banning them is far far worse. Yet where are the economic conservatives who preach the virtues of the free market in this debate?

Oh, and individual - I don't consider the Labor party particularly left-wing at all. While Rudd is a vast improvement over Howard, any one looking for a genuinely progressive government committed to fighting aspects of the status quo that entrench inequity and injustice is not going to find much to rejoice in with the ALP.

Individual may I get in here? my loyalty to Labor is strong, some who have seen my posts in other forums know it is stretched sometimes.
I was a youthful activist in the 1970,s for my party.
Ready to fight in 1975 That day is still in my mind.
Looking back my party let me down!
Come Curr, sorry Kerr's sell out we could not muster enough support to even go close in the election.
Hawke did a great job in returning us to power so soon after a defeat we earned by some truly stupid actions.
Our 23 year stay in the wilderness came via our right the DLP we all helped!
In fighting seemed more important than victory.
If Julia Gillard in her former left role had lead us into this elect do not dream, we would be still in opposition for a total exceeding that 23 years.
My party did not sell out!
It did what conservatives must now do, it evolved.
It followed the only power that makes governments voters.
And just for a start Kevin Rudd will by the time he leaves office have reinvented us, rebuild our brand name, and destroyed the view we are unable to be trusted.
Remember basic maths numbers not dreams control Parliament.
I revel in 2007 a victory only mainstream Labor and like it or not the trade union movement could deliver.
Along with help from a stale government and a host of former Liberal voters.
New Labor is better than no Labor.

FrankGol,

1. Not sure what your point is here? Though agreed I should have added "honest achievement".
2. The "for its own sake" is critical, because the reality is that equality of opportunity is to large degree dependent on a certain amount of equality of outcome: vast disparities in wealth preclude a fair society where everybody is capable of achieving their full potential.
3. The anti-thesis is that market forces are not capable of innovation/creativity/wealth-creation, how is that supportable? Anyway, see previous reply to CJ on #3.
4. Again see #4, but it's not technically true that the rich can't become richer without the poorer becoming relatively poorer. But it does require that the richer you become, the harder is it to become richer still, whereas the poorer you are, the easier it is to become richer - arguably the opposite is true in most capitalist societies.
6. True, but just addressing the suspicions on the Right that most environmental causes are somehow conspiracies of the Left.
7. I don't think this needs context - "offense" alone is not sufficient justification for curtailing free speech. "Hate speech" that intentionally incites discrimination and violence against minorities is quite a different matter.
8. See above reply to CJ.
9. Exactly. Just because governments are inefficient or make bad decisions does not necessarily mean private enterprise will do any better.
10. See above reply to Dickie.

And of course the Left-Right divide is a gross simplification, but it's obviously not completely useless. I deliberately avoided getting into purely social issues (gay marriage, euthanasia etc.) because there are a lot of people who fit the Left-Right split on economic issues but not on social issues (itself a blurry divide - Friedman argued against criminalisation of drugs largely on an economics basis, even calling it "socialism").
On the social side, I'm about as a left-wing/libertarian as you can get (I don't even see why we should need laws banning polygamy, for instance).

wizofus,

1. Life does not always amount to all that we are capable of or want. People impose on us – legally and illegally, morally and immorally.

2. Equality of opportunity is vacuous without measures of equality of outcomes – for groups of equal merit (e.g. women/men, black/white, ability). ‘For its own sake’ could apply to equality of opportunity too: why differentiate?

3. Market forces are not invariably good and can be a force for bad e.g. Australian workers sacked because Korean workers can be paid less.

4. You are out-of-touch with the realities of wealth and poverty which are reflexive constructs. People are only rich because others are poor. The more wealthy people there are, the more poor people there have to be, by definition. This applies at individual and nation-state levels. The ‘trickle-down effect’ is rich people’s propaganda.

5. Define ‘worthwhile’.

6. This remains a statement of fact not a belief of either ‘left’ or ‘right’.

7. You just gave a context – ‘"Hate speech" that intentionally incites discrimination and violence against minorities is quite a different matter.’ Is it OK to call all disabled or all Indigenous ‘dole bludgers’? Or all Muslims ‘terrorists’?

8. This is better than your original which carried emotionally and politically loaded terms.

9. You’re drawing a false dichotomy – on an empirically testable matter. Governments make good and bad decisions and are efficient and inefficient – exactly like private enterprise.

10. You’re right - the solution to bad government is good government, not necessarily "less government" - although ‘better’ government rather than ‘good’ government might be more realistic.

You say that you ‘deliberately avoided getting into purely social issues (gay marriage, euthanasia etc.)’. I think you almost concede that this distinction between ‘purely social issues’ and ‘economic issues’ is problematic. Even more so would be the distinction between ‘social’ and ‘political’ issues. Is polygamy merely a ‘social’, and not a ‘political’ or ‘economic’ issue?

You agree that ‘the Left-Right divide is a gross simplification, but it's obviously not completely useless.’ Obviously? How so? You don’t make the case and I challenged it.

Frank Gol may I come in here?and maybe the other poster who holds my faction guilty of winning too much.
Yes dreadful as it sounds I am from center unity, the NSW right of the ALP.
I love and admire the passion of the left, it once was my home yes I was a committed lefty, little fat communist as a child in fact.
My sin?
look back to an earlier post here, I said sometimes my love of my party is stretched.
Those times are when we plan not to win elections, divide ourselves with policy's that keep us in opposition.
I often stand with the left if I believe they are right.
And against if I think they are wrong.
Do not convict me for being in the side that wins more often.

We do so because most in our party agree with us, no sin to want to work from government not cry in opposition.
50 years from now those who hold the seats we sit in today hopefully will still understand only in government can the left of center make an impact.
Senator Faulkner a very commented lefty is in my view one of the Parliaments top 5 on our side so maybe the right are not always wrong.

Good Afternoon Everyone and A Happy New Year!

Am I Left or Right? It varies ... Depending on the circumstances ...
But, I am pro-fairness, and social justice, so I suppose that would make me more - Left?

Anyway, I basically agree with 1)Except to want to be rewarded for your achievments implies greed. The achievement should be its own reward.

2) Agree - with reservations. 3) Agree- again with reservations.
4) Don't agree - if the rich are getting richer - it usually means the poor aren't doing so well.
5) Agree. 6) Agree. 7) Freedom of Speech is guaranteed in our society.
However - I hesitate about whether it shouldn't be curtailed if its going to cause problems. I would not want to see the use of profanity against certain groups that might incite violence.
8) Agree - It should be proportional to the need.
9) Agree - Governments are run by people, people aren't perfect - mistakes will occur.
10) Certain situations require Government intervention...

Room for a righty in here? Not much to quibble about in this list. Most Lib. voters I know would compose much the same list.

My only disagreement is with #5. Economic growth is not just worthwhile, but is imperative. The solutions to the coming energy problems, sufficient welfare, equality of opportunity, maintenance of and access to the common wealth hinge on sustained economic development and growth.

economy

The terms ‘left’ and ‘right’ have no universally understood meaning regarding political systems. Perhaps ‘open slather’ and ‘reasonably controlled’ might be more useful terms to describe political standpoints. You appear to prefer ‘open slather’, whilst I lean towards ‘reasonable control’.
Your points:
1.Individuals should take responsibility for their own actions, learn from their mistakes, and be rewarded for their achievement
2. Equality of opportunity should always be strived for, but equality of outcome is not desirable for its own sake
3. Market economies are a force for good, and admirably capable of innovation, creativity and wealth generation
4. The rich getting richer does not mean the poor are getting poorer
5. Economic growth is worthwhile
6. Many people have irrational concerns about environmental damage and the health risks of technology
7. Freedom of speech should not be curtailed in order to avoid offending minority groups
8. An overly generous welfare state is not desirable
9. Governments are often inefficient and frequently make bad decisions
10. Government intervention into market forces often results in unwanted outcomes
My response:
1 & 2 ok.
3. market economies are ‘forces’... that’s all; not necessarily for good.
4. Yes it does. On a planetary scale, the rich are definitely getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, because we live in a closed system.
5. Probably not. Economic growth depends on growth in the exploitation of the planet’s natural resources. But they are finite. Unless humans strike a balance between input and extraction, we are doomed.
6. Environmental damage is real, probably permanent, causing the extinction of hundreds of thousands of species annually, upsetting the ecological balance of the entire planet, and putting all life, including humans, at risk of following suit. Technology is no more risk free than any other human endeavour.
7. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to inflame passions and incite others to persecute minorities.
8.9 & 10... agree... but as someone else observed. Unwanted by whom?

WizofAus statements are of his beliefs and core values. I agree with all of them as I guess the new labor party does. The statements do not deal with every circumstance as there will always be exceptions to everything.

1 - Basis for modern society. Frankgol's exceptions are inane.
2 - People need to be given the same freedoms to achieve. What they achieve is up to them. Again the basis for a just society.
3 - Market forces are like electricity, if abused it can be harmful, however, no society can function without it. The antithesis is communism which is a force for oppression and misery.
4 - Statement of fact. As most countries develop generally the rich get richer and the poor relatively get richer too. Compared to Africa where the wealth distribution is far more skewed.
5 - Statement of fact. The antithesis is depression is good?
6 - This goes without saying.
7 - I am a firm believer in freedom of speech. I also believe that it should not be curtailed to advoid offending the majority.
8 - State welfare is to assist those who permanently or temporarily are unable to work, however, it should never be an alternative to employment.
9 - The purpose of gov is to enable business to operate in a safe and fair manner. Efficiency is difficult to measure unless they actually get involved in business where they are seldom efficient.
10 - Gov is meant to regulate the markets to ensure fair play and accountablity. Most examples of gov trying to alter the markets end badly for all concerned. The prime example is rent control which discourages building and eventually increases rentals.

The left that most people understand is the old type socialist whose vacation from reality is well documented. The new left is market oriented libertarian. I would place Wiz in this bracket with myself.

you arent a lefty mate - youre a champagne socialist!...you are simply following the latest trend where people like to call themselves leftys when in reality they live their lives like true Liberals.

For example, John Howard lost his seat in a traditionally conservative area - how many people in this electorate are blue collar workers?? How many people in this electorate earn below the national average wage?? How many people in this electorate send their kids to public schools??

Load of bollocks mate, Im sick to death of hypocritical 'leftys' telling me how I should be living my life when in reality they arent prepared to practice their 'lefty' beliefs in their own.

WIZZY you didn't mention the REALLL issues which divide 'Right' and "Left" .. they are the moral ones.. those annoying issues like 'Feminism' 'Homosexual rights' 'Abortion' etc....'Church and State'

State your position on those and we will quickly see your lefty or righty credentials mate.

Left, right.

Right, wrong.

Orange, green.

Mind, body.

Universal, particular.

Emotion, intellect.

Feeling, thinking.

Light, darkness.

Truth, beauty.

Male, female.

Venus, Mars.

Monism, pluralism.

Nature, nurture.

Process, content.

Wealth, poverty.

Evil, good.

Idealist, realist.

a priori, a posteriori.

Zero, God.

Left, right.

Is, ought.

Either, or.

Thinking, OLO.

Long way, short cut. Right, left. Neither, both. Label, libel.

Not left, not right but forward!

And we shall judge politicians on their politics!

Who in this world really knows what's going on! I dont, but I will not stop trying. Good luck.

Izzo,

Your inability to read what I wrote is only matched by your ignorance of the new labor gov. The Rudd family both uni graduates with a combined assets in the tens of millions would probably not qualify as lefties in your archaic definition either and are probably closer to your "champagne socialist" or even right wing.

I personally believe in social justice rather than socialism, and libertianism over the command economy called for by the old guard left who mainly consist of old union stalwarts mumbling into their beer and recalling "the good old days" when they could tell everone else what to do.

The "left" for decades is a term also used to include those libertiarians pressing for civil rights etc and has never been the exclusive domain of the socialist - mate.

That post has to be answered quote the old Gard of the union.
Unions may not wish to openly debate the issue[ a weakness if true]but they are indeed divided by the left and right thing.
I see no way it can be any other way in my lifetime.
Old guard statement however is uninformed,the leadership of my union nationally is 26 years old, and his 2ic maybe 34.
And the union is better for it.
Unionism like the left is evolving and do not be too surprised to find far from dead.
Much like the ALP no other way exists to go forward than move with the membership/voters.
Debating the differences in left and right factions of the left of center is just as interesting as the great divides in both shrunken conservative party's they have more factions than members in the house.

Frank...*WHACK*.. thats what you have to do to people who just 'babble' incoherrently :)

DEMOCRITUS.. you made a VERY important point there about the "good old days when the unionists could tell everyone what do do".

It is that very point which reveals the true problem we face.. not 'economic or social injustice' but evil human nature.

We can all imagine the empassioned speeches by the Unionists as they railllled against 'The Greedy evil bosses' and waxed eloquent about 'Class war' etc.. all for the ultimate purpose of gaining the power of which you spoke. "So we can tell them all what do do"

We can all see them attacking greedy bosses with their left hand, while agrandizing themselves and their positions with their right.
Promising unsustainable gains and benefits to workers to get elected as union bosses, then feathering their own nests.

Once they have that 'power'... they continue the rhetoric, but now the reference point is the new advances and gains.. which are now portrayed as 'exploitation, unust, unfair' etc.. to keep them (the new 'bosses' i.e. UNION bosses) relevant.

No..the problem is not Union bosses nor Company bosses, or 'entrenched greed'.. it is quite simply, a fallen nature we all share, and for which there is only one answer, humble repentance to Almighty God, and faith in Christ who revews us at our deepest level.

This thread's moved on somewhat since my last contribution, and Boazy's idiotic call above for "humble repentance to Almighty God, and faith in Christ" suggests it's just about run its intelligible course. A pity.

However, in reply to wiz's response to my earlier comment:

#3 - agreed with those qualifications.

#4 - I still disagree that "Most people who become rich do so by creating wealth, hence "growing the pie". As far as I can tell, most people who are very rich become so by virtue of an accident of birth or by shameless and often criminal exploitation of markets and the consumers and workers who constitute them.

#5 - still ambivalent. If economic growth is indeed possible without exponential increases in population and consumption of material goods I might agree, but I've yet to see a sustained example.

#8 - agreed with that qualification.

Does that make me a Lefty?

All the best for the new year.

Democritus - I really dont think Im ignorant at all, I read what you wrote and came to the conclusion that your views are that of the 'New Labor Government'. As I stated, these views are very similar to a majority of the people who call themselves leftys but in fact would shudder if they knew the true basis of what a Labor goverment historically stands for.

CJ Morgan -
"#4 - I still disagree that "Most people who become rich do so by creating wealth, hence "growing the pie". As far as I can tell, most people who are very rich become so by virtue of an accident of birth or by shameless and often criminal exploitation of markets and the consumers and workers who constitute them."

Im curious as to how you could come to such a conclusion....Id love to hear of any examples you know of - particularly the bit about the workers and consumers being exploited - and I mean recently, not 100 years ago....AND in Australia, not in China etc where the workers are the responsibility of their own governments.

Im yet to see where a large Australian company has recently intentionally exploited their Australian employees.

Frank:

1. "Life does not always amount to all that we are capable of or want"...sure, but I don't see how this invalidates or even qualifies my point.

2. Agreed - the "for its own sake" is to clarify that I reject any doctrine that suggests it's better for everyone to be equally poor than to have a mixture of those who are wealthy and those who are not.

3. Disagree that Australian workers getting sacked because Korean ones are cheaper is necessarily a bad outcome. Australia should be working on increasing the productivity of its employees, meaning we can work less and create more wealth.

4. "The more wealthy people there are, the more poor people there have to be, by definition". Huh? It's completely possible for the number of people earning twice the average income to increase, while the number of people earning half the average income to decrease. Indeed, that's even (theoretically) possible with a fixed amount of wealth, which is obviously not the case anyway.

9. Not sure how it's a false dichotomy. What I accept is that there are cases where allowing competition among private enterprises will, on balance, lead to increased inefficiency and better outcomes than government monopolies, but it's by no means a given, and depends considerably on the nature of the industry.

If the "Left-Right" divide was completely useless, it wouldn't still be used, to the point of large numbers of people happily categorising themselves as one or the other.

BOAZ, re moral issues - my position here is pretty simple: governments attempting to control the what informed, consensual adults do in their private lives is virtually never justified, and almost invariably leads to outcomes that the majority would agree were ultimately undesirable. Indeed, there are very few cases where it's desirable to have governments controlling what informed consensual adults do in public either. Of course there are grey areas, but remarkably few.

I will make a small concession that there is a dangerous in attempting to be "too" progressive and rush through social change at a pace faster than the majority can adjust comfortably too. But in many areas, Australia has gone from being one of the more progressive countries in the developed world (e.g. giving women the vote) to one of the most backwards - a situation I seriously hope to see rectified in the next decade or so.

Hear, hear! Wizofaus. Strngth to your bow!

BTW, one further point re the capacity of market forces for innovation/wealth-creation: it remains the case that publicly funded research and development has been critically responsible for some of our most revolutionary technological achievements: nuclear power, space travel, and the Internet to name just three. It seems pretty improbable to me that any of these would have ever been developed via private enterprise alone. It's also the case that much of our wealth and technological advancement is due to the tireless and often economically unrewarded work of great scientists, mathematicians, inventors and volunteers, including the free software that powers much of the Internet. In other words, selfishness and greed (at least for monetary reward) are not *necessary* motivators, though they are undeniably powerful ones. I'd like to think that the more materially wealthy we become, the less the desire for more material wealth will be an important motivator behind progress.

wizofaus,

1. Simply, individuals can't always take responsibility for their own actions e.g. Cornelia Rau.

3. Fine for economists, terrible for the Australian unemployed.

4. How else can you measure wealth or poverty but by their reflexive relationship?

9. The false dichotomy is between decisions (or efficiency) made by government and private enterprise. Neither has the monopoly on merit.

On the usefulness of the "Left-Right" divide, people believed the earth was flat well after it was demonstrated not to be. Large numbers of people believe they are Christians, but their actions betray them.

The left-right dichotomy has had its day. The Political Compass (http://www.politicalcompass.org/test) uses a quadrant taking account of a Libertarian/Authoritarian social scale and a Communist/Free marketeer economic scale.

This is necessary to help us see the difference between socialists like Gandhi and Mugabe - the first a pacifist, the second a brutal dictator. On the 'Right', Pinochet was prepared to condone mass killings in the interests of the free market while Thatcher was only prepared to condone mass sackings.

Examples from the four quadrants would include:

* Libertarian Left: Noam Chomsky, Tariq Ali and J.K. Galbraith

* Libertarian Right: F.A. Hayek, Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman

* Authoritarian Left: Fidel Castro, Kim Jong Il and Samir Amin

* Authoritarian Right: George W. Bush, Irving Kristol and William F. Buckley.

There's a useful but controversial discussion of the demise of left/right dichotomy also on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-right_politics)

The article concludes: "Many modern thinkers question whether the left-right distinction is even relevant in the 21st century. After all, in most countries left-right appears more a matter of historical contingency and local politics than any coherent statement of principle."

1. But those weren't "her own actions".
3. Temporarily yes, but the point is that there is now an opportunity for those workers to be trained/educated to a higher level of productivity, which will benefit them (and Australia as a whole).
4. Off the top of my head...someone whose entire paycheque goes on rent, food & other necessities is poor. Someone who never needs to look at the price of what they spend on necessities is wealthy.
9. That is a genuine dichotomy in the context - enterprises are either run by government or by private enterprise. But it doesn't seem like we actually disagree with each other here anyway.

Yes, I'm well aware of the quadrant, which is a slight improvement on the single-axis dichotomy. However I was deliberately focussing on the "economic" scale in this thread. FWIW, out of all the names you list there, I would most associate with Galbraith.

wizofaus,

1. What weren't "her own actions"? Taking leave from QANTAS and joining a Sydney sect called Kenjan in 1998? An intense encounter with a sect member? Becoming mentally ill? Her medical misdiagnosis? Losing her identity after she was hospitalised for three months? Her illegal detention by Immigration? An individual's actions are never entirely their own. Our actions are a complex mix of free agency and other people's influence.

3. Try telling that to the Geelong Ford factory workers, especially those over 50.

4. Poverty for you is "...someone whose entire paycheque goes on rent, food & other necessities is poor." Millions will ask: What's a pay cheque? You fail to acknowledge the politico-economic relationship between poverty and wealth. Why is poverty so often studied by researchers and wealth so infrequently? Anything to do with power and control?

There are severe problems with a narrow focus on 'the economic scale'. The most obvious is what counts as 'economic'. Racist ideology that claim some people are inferior are used to justify economic exploitation, including slavery, of colonised people.

Milton Friedman's extreme 'right' economic position - "The only social responsibility of a corporation is to deliver a profit to its shareholders" - may have landed us in the global warming mess.

When Friedman argued that the US government's war on drugs should be left to the market because it would be more efficient in dealing with the social problems of drugs, no government would support him because they knew it was not one-dimensional.

When governments discuss health care, are they dealing with a social issue or an economic one?

So to be called 'leftist' or 'rightist' is ultimately unsatisfactory. We need to understand and evaluate the arguments on each issue. Just sticking a label on someone as if that magically settles the matter is lazy and unproductive. I say: look beneath the label (libel).

You like Galbraith. I'll take him and Chomsky. But don't call me 'leftist'.

In regard to FrankGol's 4 quadrants, resulting from two axes of political differentiation, there is also a third axis which is orthogonal to the other two.

That axis concerns whether or not we acknowledge that there are limits to the biosphere. Towards one extreme we find both neo-liberals and many on the far-left who advocate effectively unlimited population growth and unlimited immigration. Towards the other extreme we find Malthusians, including myself, who believe that human civilisation has exceeded the carrying capacity through both excessive consumption and excessive population. I would also argue that the inefficiencies and grotesque inequalities of the capitalist system, particularly in its current extreme free market incarnation, has compounded the problem.

In regard to this third axis, an article which may be of interest is:

"Is it Reactionary to oppose Immigration"

... on webdiary at http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/2240

It has so far attracted 154 comments, most of which are in favour of reducing immigration, since 19 December when it was published.

Frank

1. I should have clarified that I was really talking about primarily about taking responsibility for your own finances, and being rewarded financially. I certainly don't want to turn it into a discussion about the philosophical meaning of free will. Though I will say that cases like Cornelia Rau's are some of the best arguments against "big government".

3. I don't think it's even possible to have a system with no losers. That's what the welfare safety net is for - to at least allow such people the time and freedom to take a different course in life.

4. Whether it's a paycheque or dole cheque doesn't make much difference, surely?

"Focusing on the economic scale" in this case was merely for the purpose of outlining part of my own belief system (though admittedly, #7 had nothing to do with this - that was included because it happened to be the point that set me off in the first place, after watching the Penn & Teller show the other night about "speech codes". I was heartily agreeing with them how ridiculous the situation was, until they started lambasting "The Left" for having taken over universities and supposedly imposing their ideology on others, freedom of ideas and speech be damned).

FWIW, Friedman's argument might have been flawed in principle, but events since have more than proven that he was correct to criticize the approach taken - after god-knows how many decades of this ideological zero-tolerance approach, there has been exactly how much reduction in the amount of harmful drug abuse in society? Exactly at what point do we say "fine, this approach isn't working, let's try something different"?

A very worthwhile thread. I tend to agree with most of the sentiments echoed in the first post to varying degrees, and of course with numerous caveats.
I've made many posts indicating frustration with the simplistic attacks on one political ideology.

When I read a poster saying 'the left' are responsible for this or that, I can't help but group them into the category of fringe lunatics who aren't capable of a normal political discussion.

The same goes for those who make blanket condemnation of 'the right.' In both cases, you see an attack on 'the left' or 'the right' taking place, with some dubious example being touted as representative of one side of a complex political spectrum. I'm not saying the right isn't attacked, of course it is. There's just as many fringe lunatics on either side of the debate.

This is the sure fire signature of a cynical fundamentalist, who most probably has been jilted by some event which has permanently clouded their ability to discuss things rationally.

Why do I bring this up?

Aside from the fact that there's so many of these extremists populating boards such as this, there's the fact that they tend to monopolise debate, crowding out sensible discussion, and I don't just mean in forums, I mean at all levels of society.

The political compass is a far better method of categorising political spheres, however I tend to think in general, we're better off avoiding these groupings at all actually. Sadly, most of the time, they're just used in diatribes or name calling, though at least when you focus on the individual economic or social issues, you can use specifics and demand reasoned responses to a certain extent.

TRTL, maybe it's just partisan bias, but I very rarely come across statements such as "Industry has been taken over by The Right", or "The Right is responsible for destroying social cohesion", as compared to similar such statements made about "The Left". And I read far more left-wing material than right-wing material (again, being unapologeticly partisan, largely because it is difficult to find intelligent and well-argued material that would classify as "right-wing" - at least on the web. I once spent a month devoting myself to reading only self-described conservative/right-wing blogs, and if it weren't for the comments where a few brave left-wing types hang out, I think my faith in human ability to think critically, reason effectively and to QUESTION all assumptions behind any ideology would have been all but destroyed. What's scary is that after reading the same claims over and over and over again you do actually start to find yourself believing them. It's only once you go out and start trying to find evidence to backup those claims that you realise there's usually little substance to them.)

How about a self-regulating demerit system on OLO to cut down on the inane use of the terms 'Left' and 'Right' (and their variants)?

Three strikes and you're in the sin-bin for a month. A repeat offence in the month after returning from the sin-bin and you get a six-month bar.

Consider the merits of such a scheme. It would:

(a) reduce the incidence of political cliches

(b) require posters to think about the issues rather than merely labelling others without analysis of their arguments

(c) lift the quality of the debate on OLO

(d) render mute several garrulous posters who can't think without these verbal crutches.

Any support?

Frank, what's really needed is compulsory education in critical thinking skills and common debating fallacies. This should be an essential part of every high-school curriculum.

It won't help us on OLO, but would surely make the world a better place for future generations.

I'm skeptical your suggestions would help, but I'll go along with it if you get enough interest.

I don't think that you will find anyone that labels himself "right wing" due to the association with racist / xenophobic persons. The more common term used recently is conservative.

If you look at the Nazis (national socialists) economically they would be considered left wing (socialist), likewise the liberals are liberal economically but not in any other field such as immigration civil rights etc.

Similarly people describing themselves as progressive generally try to lapse to old type socialism and any country with the word democratic in the title generally is a dictatorship.

In Australia presently the "left" would encompass anyone who voted for the Labor party, only few of whom are left wing as per izzo's interpretation.