On my last political post, I referenced "right-leaning" regulars here at SE. A number of readers were right to complain that "right-leaning" is vague, so I wanted to clarify what I mean.
If your "anti-statism" is heavily focused on dismantling the welfare state, environmental regulations and unions, you fall under my definition of "right-leaning." If you spend every second of every day vilifying the poor and fanatically praising the rich, you are right-leaning. If you think Pinochet's Chile was more "free" than modern Sweden because it was more capitalistic, you are right-leaning.
In sum, if you think labor laws, food stamps, "pork barrel" spending and affirmative action are the most outrageous things the state does, you are right-leaning and probably living in another universe. I'm trying to pinpoint a temperament more than anything.
I'm not claiming every reader or contributor at SE does this--not at all! But it's an attitude I've seen many a time.
Fair enough, Cork. Thanks for elaborating.
ReplyDeleteMany self-identified "libertarians" would fall under your definition, though it sounds even more like a description of Randian cultists.
However, I'm still not sure anyone here qualifies as "right-leaning" under those criteria. You didn't mention also criticizing constantly the military-industrial complex and "defense" spending, or attacking corporate welfare just as vigorously as any other kind. Not to mention vilifying Wall Street and the big banks, all of which we do here on a regular basis.
And the line "If you spend every second of every day vilifying the poor and fanatically praising the rich," seems unconnected to any reality I find here at SE. Who here ever fanatically praises the rich?
My problem is, I no longer consider someone an anarchist, even a left-leaning one, if they don't really have a problem with those other things you mentioned. I might separate out the labor laws, but only because I'm strongly for workers rights, though I want them in a stateless society where workers actually run the companies they are now just virtual slaves for.
Also, I have a problem with traditional 20th century definitions of left and right. Historically, I'd say "libertarians" and classical liberals are really left-wing, not right-wing, and I'd still define them that way. I consider myself firmly on the (real) left, as well.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNobody here (I hope) fanatically praises the rich, I was just listing it as an example of what comes to mind when I think "right-leaning."
ReplyDeleteMy problem is, I no longer consider someone an anarchist, even a left-leaning one, if they don't really have a problem with those other things you mentioned.
To be honest, I don't see it as any less anarchist than the alternative, which is making the state the (de facto) total servant of corporations. I'd say that the vast majority of left-anarchists agree.
It's similar to my stance on financial regulation. I think Wall Street should be brutally regulated. Is that statist? Not in my opinion, because the entire financial industry is an arm of the government anyway. Regulating them is no more statist than auditing the Fed Reserve. It's a *decrease* in state (and corporate) power when you think of it that way.
Kinda see what I mean?
handouts to the poor because of the results in aiding and accelerating the advancement of the Idiocracy
ReplyDeleteThis is a good example of what I'm talking about
, I don't see it as any less anarchist than the alternative, which is making the state the (de facto) total servant of corporations.
ReplyDeleteWhy is that the only alternative? But yes, I (kinda) see what you mean.
because the entire financial industry is an arm of the government anyway.
ReplyDeleteWell, then we have to go to the root of the problem, rather than putting band-aids on it. I don't want to center everything in Washington, D.C., and that's the result when regulations emanate from there. And do you really trust the government to regulate itself (which is what you're saying, really)?
Audit the Fed? Yes, but then, abolish it! I just see those type of "solutions" (more regulation as the answer) as no better than continuing to place our hopes in the political and electoral process and "working within the system" by voting and supporting candidates for office. It never changes anything substantial, and more regulations from Washington (except maybe in very limited circumstances) only further empowers the Federal monster. The real answer is to remove the state's support of big business (abolish all intellectual property laws, end all subsides, regulations, licensing laws and any bailouts for "too big too fails", and remove all state artificial barriers to competition). But it won't happen as long as there is a state with large corporations under a capitalist system.
I'd say that the vast majority of left-anarchists agree.
Perhaps, but many would also support the income tax as well, which is complete bullshit and statist. You can't use an evil institution (the state) to promote good, and that's what too many so-called anarchists want to do.
If the state didn't exist, neither would corporations or private property as we know it, so the primary goal should always be to eliminate the state, not help increase its power, size and scope. But of course we must also begin building the alternative social institutions that will replace it.
This is a good example of what I'm talking about
ReplyDeleteI don't see it as a good example at all (not if Radio means what I think he does).
Too often, as with all the subsidies to women with multiple children often from multiple fathers out of wedlock, it helps perpetuate an easily controlled and manipulated underclass that then is a constituency for even more from Washington, and a reliable segment of the population that will support the Federal government and not think, grow, or become reliant on themselves, their families and friends, and non-government institutions.
It's like the public schools. Is wanting to abolish public schools "right-wing" anti-poor in your opinion (I suggest you read some John Taylor Gatto on the subject of public schools, by the way)?
The government schools are there to indoctrinate and create the next generation of good little wage slaves and unquestioning statists, and it's just simplistic to say those against government education hate poor people. It's stupid.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAnd do you really trust the government to regulate itself (which is what you're saying, really)?
ReplyDeleteDo I think the government is capable of passing harsher laws that crack down on Wall Street's ridiculous financial instruments? Yes, I do. And I confess that I won't be losing any sleep over it. Those greedy bastards brought the entire fucking economy to its knees, but taking back some of their (stolen) wealth and giving it to the victims is statism?
Is wanting to abolish public schools "right-wing" anti-poor in your opinion
If by public school you mean government school (and the two aren't necessarily the same), then no. That said, a nation of home schooled Bible thumping retards isn't something I want to live in, and many (probably most) opponents of public education take the stance because they hate secularism and want to bumpkinize the nation. That is the purpose of their school voucher scam, which all too many libertarians are sympathetic toward.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteInteresting Nikk you think libertarianism/classical liberalism as left-wing. Never thought of it that way. I suppose they are on some level but overall?
ReplyDeleteIs the left-right dichotomy even useful?
Anyway. Personally, and thanks for the clarification Cork, I'm somewhere in the middle. I tend to be conservative in attire, demeanour and fiscally (though not with my business venture which is killing me. I under estimated just how close to bankruptcy state rules can bring someone), economically I definitely identify with men like Bastiat and Galliani, tend to have a strong belief that people should ask less of the state because I do feel we're at a point we enable poor behavior through well-intentioned but misguided laws, and possess a pretty liberal social outlook. I really don't see, for example, a problem with gay marriage or with legalizing certain drugs. Abortion I'm less sure of.
Large parts of the welfare state is definitely coerced and on that front I don't mind arguing and generally agree with Nikk when he brings it up. Hence, I try to do things on my own; give to the poor regularly, set up a charity etc. I don't think anyone deserves a bad card but sometimes we just have to accept it exists. Trying to "equalize" things may cost us in the long-run.
On this front, balancing 'what ought to be' and 'what we can do' with 'what is' is a magic formula we haven't figured out; not even here in Canada no matter how much we've fooled ourselves into thinking we have.
Not only that, I do feel there's an increasing infringement on personal liberties these days. Radio Bloger mentioned earlier in a post "it should be obvious."
I don't know what all this makes me.
I don't know what all this makes me.
ReplyDeleteIn Bretspeak, it makes you a myopic conservative Obama hater who should die in a pool of your own blood.
Cork, you and I are probably not so far apart. I usually come down on the side of the less powerful. I opposed the bipartisan bankruptcy "reform" law that was a gift to the banksters to make it easier for them to go after their victims, for example.
ReplyDeleteThose greedy bastards brought the entire fucking economy to its knees,
With a hell of a lot of help from the Federal Reserve, which most of those proposing regulation of Wall Street don't want to touch. We'll never have a stable economy again or real stability until we end the Fed.
Yeah, I guess it does!
ReplyDeleteComment of March 2, 2011 9:16 PM by RB:
ReplyDeleteIf the choice was A. M/I-C, Corporate welfare, Propaganda masters, Wall Street, and the Banks (in other words the oligarchy) and the “poor” I would choose the poor.
The statement "If you spend every second of every day vilifying the poor and fanatically praising the rich,” sounds Randian cultish or Neocon Tea Party - to be honest is sounds like the delusional spittle from “the narcissist” when he would throw a hissy fit when someone would even slightly disagree with minor positions.
In the end I disagree with handouts to the poor because of the results in aiding and accelerating the advancement of the Idiocracy (something I view as deliberate).
I think you would be hard pressed to find a post of mine having anything other than contempt for big business or banks.
Comment of March 2, 2011 11:52 PM by RB
ReplyDelete"an easily controlled and manipulated underclass”
Yes, and more...
Why would a potential mother bother to find a “good father” or even be responsible when given support that encourages an irresponsible matriarchal based parasitic society?
Why find a “good guy” when any biological sperm contributing bum with a good line and a score of some booze or dope?
In a responsible society potential mothers are a bit more selective, when a fly by night parasite will have less appeal. Stupid and low quality parasites have a much lower chance of reproducing when the potential parents have a responsibility for the offspring.
This of course does not play out 100% but a guarantee of support for the potential parent’s offspring aggravates the problem. It is uncomfortable to think about but unavoidable if one is to honestly look at the situation.
Given the choice of one or the other I would choose even the irresponsible and stupid breeders over the banks, but unlike the false left or false right I would rather choose the third option no support of either irresponsible greedy party.
The unintended consequences (and I think the outcome was actually planned) force one to look at humans, behavior and understand that political correctness can often do more damage than facing reality.
Comment of March 3, 2011 2:40 AM by RB
ReplyDelete"taking back some of their (stolen) wealth and giving it to the victims is statism?”
Does the wealth stolen (and I agree it was) get distributed to the victims of the middle class or owners or to someone else?
"many (probably most) opponents of public education take the stance because they hate secularism and want to bumpkinize the nation. That is the purpose of their school voucher scam”
Not always, I am an anti-theist and I think that if we had to live under the stupid system we have now I support the idea of parent and student choice - increase competition. But because I think the current system sucks I would prefer no property taxes (theft) to pay for any school - parents should take responsibility...
Ties back to the idea that without unearned and unwarranted support for the children of the stupid and irresponsible possibly the stupid and irresponsible would change or at least not produce any dependents.
Allow people who want to help children do that, but as soon as you force anyone to support children of the stupid and irresponsible then that is the state using the monopoly on violence.