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?