Left or Right: which is worse?

[Black Mamba]

If you're like me, you hold Lew Rockwell in high regards.

This article: http://tiny.cc/wq7adw written by him, which forwards one of Pauls books, is, I think, a pretty good explanation not only for libertarianism, but why the Left and Right are not only both wrong, but also hypocrites.

Some of my favorite parts are when he says:
The left has a massive agenda for the state at home, and yet complains bitterly, with shock and dismay, that the same tools are used to start wars and build imperial structures abroad. The right claims to want to restrain government at home (at least in some ways) while whooping it up for war and global reconstruction abroad ... It's one thing for the left to grudgingly support international intervention. It makes some sense for a group that believes that government is omniscient enough to bring about fairness, justice, and equality at home to do the same for people abroad. In fact, I've never been able to make much sense out of left-wing antiwar activism, simply because it cuts so much against the idea of socialism, which itself can be summed up as perpetual war on the liberty and property of the people. What strikes me as ridiculous is the right-wing view that government is incompetent and dangerous domestically — at least in economic and social affairs — but has some sort of Midas Touch internationally such that it can bring freedom, democracy, and justice to any land its troops deign to invade. Not that the right wing is principled enough to pursue its domestic views, but I'm speaking here of its campaign rhetoric and higher-level of critique of government that you find in their periodicals and books. The precise critique of government that they offer for the welfare state and regulatory measures — they are expensive, counterproductive, hobble human energies — applies many times over to international interventions.

So after reading that, it seems like the Right is just as hypocritical as the Left... but, if you think about it, the Left doesnt CLAIM to stand for "limited, constitutional government" like the Right does. If you listen to any Right winger, they'll sound a lot like a libertarian — they say they support liberty, the constitution, and the ideas of the founding fathers — but in reality, a lot of those Right wingers can be just as statist as those on the Left.

So, this has been bugging me a bit lately. Do you guys know what I mean? You have two versions of statism, the Left version and the Right version, but the Right gets away with thinking and claiming that they're for liberty and small government... doesnt that make the Right a lot MORE hypocritical than the Left?

P.S. - Its not like the Left sounds like libertarianism when they talk about what they believe. But the Right does. Shouldnt those on the Right be the ones that SHOULD agree with us, wouldnt they be the ones easier to convert?

[DamianTV]

Left and Right is the same Illusion as Coke and Pepsi.

[cindy25]

in theory both are equally evil, but in the case of Obama vs Romney one must add the context of likely control of the House and senate by Republicans; so a choice Obama with an opposition congress is better than Romney with a rubber stamp congress.

plus Dems in congress have no backbone (example rubber stamp of W); I doubt if GOP congressmen would have rolled over to a President Gore.

[Sola_Fide]

The more I understand Liberty, the more I hate the Right.

[DamianTV]

And why do we continue to think that a Democratic or Republican Congress is actually in charge of this country? They arent. They are bought and paid for, all the way to the Bank. Congress, doesnt matter which party, is damn near entirely controlled by the Corporations that fund their campaigns, the MSM, and the Banking Elite. A change in party one way or the other is nothing more than a Show designed to entertain the masses that still believe that there is an actual difference in the two party system.

[DamianTV]

The more I understand Liberty, the more I hate the Right.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXBZd3jmbWg

Define your terms of Left and Right. I still call it the Illusion of Choice.

[QuickZ06]

And why do we continue to think that a Democratic or Republican Congress is actually in charge of this country? They arent. They are bought and paid for, all the way to the Bank. Congress, doesnt matter which party, is damn near entirely controlled by the Corporations that fund their campaigns, the MSM, and the Banking Elite. A change in party one way or the other is nothing more than a Show designed to entertain the masses that still believe that there is an actual difference in the two party system.

I concur.

[SewrRatt]

They are both worse.

[Origanalist]

They are both an evil that needs to be defeated. I guess my question is can this be done using the gop as the vehicle of that mission?

[WilliamC]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_S0A5L4WBtAU/TJ8jj9ZkTsI/AAAAAAAAFnY/o_xchiNey5E/s1600/Republic+Democrat+Same+Fucking+Difference.jpg

[Origanalist]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_S0A5L4WBtAU/TJ8jj9ZkTsI/AAAAAAAAFnY/o_xchiNey5E/s1600/Republic+Democrat+Same+Fucking+Difference.jpg

+1 just for that pic. It's a keeper.

[No Free Beer]

Left and Right is the same Illusion as Coke and Pepsi.

Coke and Pepsi are a little different.

I drink neither...

[VanBummel]

The right at least acts like they care about capitalism and the Constitution...but they don't. The left at least acts like they care about stopping wars and protecting civil liberties...but they don't. They are exact copies, minus the rhetoric...unfortunately the rhetoric is enough to fool most people. :/

[AuH20]

If you look at the key moments in this country's past, the left has done incalcuable damage and in turn has moved the Overton window so far in the direction of the state, that it has transformed the Republican Party into a mockery of itself. Look who pushed for the Federal Reserve act, the progressive tax system, the commerce clause, the myriad of New Deal programs and the entry into the Great Wars. Democrats and progressives have essentially run this country for the last 100 years.

[DamianTV]

Coke and Pepsi are a little different.

I drink neither...

Thats true. Coke has four letters in its name, Pepsi has five. By comparison, they are slightly different, but effectively are so similar that those differences are negligible. Like driving a car off of a cliff, does it really make that much of a difference whether you veer 2 degrees to north or two degrees south? Still going off a cliff.

[Don Lapre]

If you look at the key moments in this country's past, the left has done incalcuable damage and in turn has moved the Overton window so far in the direction of the state, that it has transformed the Republican Party into a mockery of itself. Look who pushed for the Federal Reserve act, the progressive tax system, the commerce clause, the myriad of New Deal programs and the entry into the Great Wars. Democrats and progressives have essentially run this country for the last 100 years.

Yes.

I generally have more disdain for a leftist than a neo-con.

Neo-cons are misguided for sure, however they tend to have a strong sense of pride in America.
They are confused about national defense and national... offense, but most of them want to have respect for our sovereignty as a nation.

A lot of lefties, on the other hand, really don't give half a shit about America.
They view us as just a piece in the WORLD puzzle and often view the constitution as a roadblock to the kid of 'progress' they dream about.

Pitifully childish and frighteningly naive, the liberal tends to be.

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

I just dont buy into the whole left right paradigm.

It's like asking "What's worst...chopping off your arms or your legs?!" it doesnt matter, both are detrimental to my freedom. Some things I can agree with on both "sides" but at the end of the day it comes down to freedom.

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

Yes.

I generally have more disdain for a leftist than a neo-con.

Neo-cons are misguided for sure, however they tend to have a strong sense of pride in America.

What is "pride in America?"

Pride in your private property, pride in your government? Pride in the land that is currently considered America?


They are confused about national defense and national... offense, but most of them want to have respect for our sovereignty as a nation.

A lot of lefties, on the other hand, really don't give half a shit about America.

Again, what has Republicans done to strengthen your freedom? What have Repubs done to stand by your natural rights?


They view us as just a piece in the WORLD puzzle and often view the constitution as a roadblock to the kid of 'progress' they dream about.

Isnt that ever damn political party?


Pitifully childish and frighteningly naive, the liberal tends to be.

You can paint that phrase on the entire notion of government as a whole.

[GunnyFreedom]

Thats true. Coke has four letters in its name, Pepsi has five. By comparison, they are slightly different, but effectively are so similar that those differences are negligible. Like driving a car off of a cliff, does it really make that much of a difference whether you veer 2 degrees to north or two degrees south? Still going off a cliff.

What I like to say to Republican Primary audiences, that actually gets applause believe it or not, is:

"I see no difference between driving off a cliff at 60mph under Democrats or 55mph under Republicans. In the end the result is the same, you have gone over a cliff. The only way back is to restore the Constitution -- something that the establishment in both parties will resist with every ounce of will they have, because the Constitution does not allow them to puppet for the lobbyists and the special interests."

[AuH20]

Yes.

I generally have more disdain for a leftist than a neo-con.

Neo-cons are misguided for sure, however they tend to have a strong sense of pride in America.
They are confused about national defense and national... offense, but most of them want to have respect for our sovereignty as a nation.

A lot of lefties, on the other hand, really don't give half a shit about America.
They view us as just a piece in the WORLD puzzle and often view the constitution as a roadblock to the kid of 'progress' they dream about.

Pitifully childish and frighteningly naive, the liberal tends to be.

Republicans in the 1930s were fiercely anti-New Deal and more isolationist. Fast forward 80 years and due to the statist moving of the goalposts, Republicans have been consolidated as the other special interest party. It's like the Borg. Republicans were assimilated many years ago into the government-media complex.

[noneedtoaggress]

What is "pride in America?"

Pride in your private property, pride in your government? Pride in the land that is currently considered America?

Exactly.

[Paul Or Nothing II]

If you look at the key moments in this country's past, the left has done incalcuable damage and in turn has moved the Overton window so far in the direction of the state, that it has transformed the Republican Party into a mockery of itself. Look who pushed for the Federal Reserve act, the progressive tax system, the commerce clause, the myriad of New Deal programs and the entry into the Great Wars. Democrats and progressives have essentially run this country for the last 100 years.

+1


Yes.

I generally have more disdain for a leftist than a neo-con.

Neo-cons are misguided for sure, however they tend to have a strong sense of pride in America.
They are confused about national defense and national... offense, but most of them want to have respect for our sovereignty as a nation.

A lot of lefties, on the other hand, really don't give half a shit about America.
They view us as just a piece in the WORLD puzzle and often view the constitution as a roadblock to the kid of 'progress' they dream about.

Pitifully childish and frighteningly naive, the liberal tends to be.

+1

I tend to agree, yes, there's little difference between parties today because the leftists & progressives have pushed the government farther & farther to the left
The Republican establishment mayn't care much about things but one thing is that the Republican VOTERS DO CARE about things like free market, less government (at least on economic issues), The Constitution, gun-rights, less spending etc etc while leftists always want MORE GOVERNMENT so at least we can hold the Right accountable & give them a guilt-trip on their principles but not to the progressives
So yes, practically, when we talk of PARTIES there's little difference BUT when we talk of Repub VOTERS v Dem VOTERS, I'd definitely choose the Repub crowd because they do actually believe in less government in general (more than leftists anyway)
And again, that's precisely why Ron Paul has been running & winning as a REPUBLICAN, imagine him running as a Democrat & talking about cutting taxes, cutting regulation, cutting spending, the welfare, the big government - he'd lose like he's never lost anything before!

The thing is, in America, at we we're lucky to still have a "Right", but if you go to most of the European countries where the population religiously believes in big government, there's hardly any "Right", there's like center-left, left & extreme-left :eek: This is where I think US is also heading & having Obama's clone as a Republican nominee, there's certainly a push for a move further left in the US politics :mad:
I'm sure in Europe, they'll consider Romney to be an "extreme-Right-winger" :rolleyes:
And Ron Paul, with his less government, less regulations, less spending, anti-welfare pro-gun beliefs would be considered so far to the Right that he wouldn't even exist on their political spectrum; they'll probably put him in a mental asylum for not believing in big government :eek:


Republicans in the 1930s were fiercely anti-New Deal and more isolationist. Fast forward 80 years and due to the statist moving of the goalposts, Republicans have been consolidated as the other special interest party. It's like the Borg. Republicans were assimilated many years ago into the government-media complex.

Well, there have been flip-flops on positions between in Repubs & Dems through the history
For example, Ron Paul's favorite president is - President Veto - Grover Cleveland & he was a small government Democrat, so there was a time that Repubs were :"Left" before they became "Right"

Yes, but again, I agree the big government leftists have moved the goal-post so far to the Left that Repubs have had to accommodate in order to sustain their political existence over decades of progressivism

[Don Lapre]

What is "pride in America?"

Figure it out and draw your own conclusions.

I'm sure you will, anyway.

Nothing I will say will sway you.


Generally speaking (and note that I am talking about the citizen and not the leader) the neo-con is patriotic and wants a great and successful America .

A good many of liberals, on the other hand, seem to take delight in the idea of America being broken down and surpassed by other nations.

[Black Mamba]

Thanks for all the replies everyone, but maybe I should have worded my question a little better...

I wasn't referring to the "Left" and the "Right" as in politicians, just the people who believe what they believe.

Put it this way: without going into any actual positions, what are the objectives and goals of a libertarian? What would you say? Limited government, liberty, respect for the constitution, following the advice the founders gave us... those things, right?

Well, the Right DOES have those goals, too. If you ask THEM if THEY believe in those things, they'd say yes. Right-wingers and libertarians just have different ways of GETTING there (and most on the Right can't even see the disconnect or the cognitive dissonance in their minds).

But if you ask someone on the LEFT what THEIR political goals and objectives are, theirs dont SOUND libertarian-ish like those on the Right do. They'll probably say something like justice, progress, fairness, equality... things like that, right?

I mean, it would almost make more sense if the political goals and objectives of those on the Right sounded just as different to libertarianism as those on the Left... but they dont. Unless I'm missing something?

[Don Lapre]

I understand, Mamba.

From my observation, the neo-con citizen has, generally, many of the same goals as the Libertarian.

The liberal, however, is stuck in a "fairness" rut, and he can't grasp the reality that that vision can never be achieved by government intervention, anyway.

As I mentioned, his thinking is not much different than a child's.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Republicans in the 1930s were fiercely anti-New Deal and more isolationist. Fast forward 80 years and due to the statist moving of the goalposts, Republicans have been consolidated as the other special interest party. It's like the Borg. Republicans were assimilated many years ago into the government-media complex.

Nope, The Old Right was a sham; it was a few guys who walked the walk, and everyone else talked the talk.

Meet the new guys, same as the old guys.

[Anti Federalist]

I prefer an enemy that confronts me openly, so that I can see the danger and react accordingly.

Much worse is enemy who claims to be your "friend" only to stab you in the back at a crucial moment.


Thanks for all the replies everyone, but maybe I should have worded my question a little better...

I wasn't referring to the "Left" and the "Right" as in politicians, just the people who believe what they believe.

Put it this way: without going into any actual positions, what are the objectives and goals of a libertarian? What would you say? Limited government, liberty, respect for the constitution, following the advice the founders gave us... those things, right?

Well, the Right DOES have those goals, too. If you ask THEM if THEY believe in those things, they'd say yes. Right-wingers and libertarians just have different ways of GETTING there (and most on the Right can't even see the disconnect or the cognitive dissonance in their minds).

But if you ask someone on the LEFT what THEIR political goals and objectives are, theirs dont SOUND libertarian-ish like those on the Right do. They'll probably say something like justice, progress, fairness, equality... things like that, right?

I mean, it would almost make more sense if the political goals and objectives of those on the Right sounded just as different to libertarianism as those on the Left... but they dont. Unless I'm missing something?

[AuH20]

Nope, The Old Right was a sham; it was a few guys who walked the walk, and everyone else talked the talk.

Meet the new guys, same as the old guys.

Rothbard wrote a great piece about the Old Right and how radical it was in retrospect to it's contemporary imposters:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard45.html


In those days, it was a pleasure to pore over the voting records of right-wing Republicans in Congress, especially in the harder-core House, for the common garden-variety rightists of the pre-1955 era make the most right-wing congressmen today seem impossibly leftist and socialistic. My two favorite congressmen were Howard Buffett of Nebraska and Frederick C. Smith of Ohio, both of whom would invariably draw "zero" ratings from the Americans for Democratic Action and other leftist groups. I remember being disappointed that once in a while they might deviate by favoring a federal anti-lynching bill; did they not know that the federal government is not supposed to have any police powers?

Friendly disagreement on positive principles meant genuine and healthy diversity and freedom of discussion within right-wing circles. As Thomas Fleming noted with astonishment when researching the Old Right, there was no party line, and there was no organ or central GHQ that excommunicated "unrespectable" members. There was a wide spectrum of positive views: ranging from pure libertarian decentralization to Hamilitonian reliance on strong government within rigid limits to various wings of monarchists. And in all this diversity and range of discourse, no one would react in shock and horror to any "extreme" views – so long as the "extremism" did not mean selling out the fight against the New Deal. There was also a great deal of disagreement on specific policies that had been open questions in the Old, pre-New Deal, Republic: tariffs vs. free trade; immigration restrictions vs. open borders; and what constitutes a military or foreign policy truly consistent with American national interests.

[ZenBowman]

I prefer an enemy that confronts me openly, so that I can see the danger and react accordingly.

Much worse is enemy who claims to be your "friend" only to stab you in the back at a crucial moment.

Thinking of people as enemies or friends is counterproductive.

Think of them as babies who have not yet grasped reality and need some guidance to become adults and see the world for what it is. The majority of people want prosperity and freedom, leftists and neocons just haven't yet realized that neither of their ideologies will take them there. As an adult, your job is to show them how.