Left-Right spectrum

Are you on the left or the right?

Right-wing: Right-wing politics hold that social stratification and social inequality are inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable, typically defending this position on the basis of natural law, economics or tradition. Hierarchy and inequality may be viewed as natural results of traditional social differences or competition in market economies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics
Left-wing: Left-wing politics supports social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy and social inequality. They typically involve concern for those in society whom they perceive as disadvantaged relative to others and a belief that there are unjustified inequalities that need to be reduced or abolished.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics

Bi0Hazard: Much more left than right. Though few people are absolutely either, of course.

admin: Are you in opposition to social inequality/hierarchy?
You support social equality and egalitarianism?

Bi0Hazard: I'm pretty central. I hold both left and right wing views but I don't strongly lean towards either side of the spectrum.

Famousdebater: What I am referring to is simply left or right. In this, you are either right or left. I provided definitions on what they are from Wikipedia.
If you are capitalist, then you are on the right.

Bi0Hazard: To some extent.

For example, I believe that hierarchy is inherent in good decision making. If somebody chooses to smoke, knowing the risks, and gets lung cancer, that's on them, at least as far as I'm concerned. Conversely if somebody buys a property that appreciates in value, without that being speculative and with appropriate taxes, it's only fair that they should reap the rewards of that smart investment. These are examples of ways in which I conform to a right wing position, in that I agree with some measure of social heirarchy.

In most respects however I strongly support substantive social equality (how's that for assonance? XD) and that's why I identify as left wing. I believe that currently people are prevented from having a fair opportunity to make good decisions because of largely social barriers. Where you are born, what color your skin is etc tend to define, to too great an extent, people's outcomes in life. That needs to be challenged at every level, from education to healthcare to politics. Nor should my views be construed as meritocratic, because some people do need a bit more assistance than others - take the disabled for example. To give everybody a good chance at having a good life, rather than those who already enjoy privilege, is to me the highest calling of social development. To that extent I consider myself a progressive.

admin: For example, I believe that hierarchy is inherent in good decision making. If somebody chooses to smoke, knowing the risks, and gets lung cancer, that's on them, at least as far as I'm concerned.
What does that have to do with hierarchy?
Conversely if somebody buys a property that appreciates in value, without that being speculative and with appropriate taxes, it's only fair that they should reap the rewards of that smart investment.
That would be how you think society should be structured. So, are you saying you believe the capitalist framework to be the most fair?
I believe that currently people are prevented from having a fair opportunity to make good decisions because of largely social barriers.
Give me examples of some of the "social barriers".
Where you are born, what color your skin is etc tend to define, to too great an extent, people's outcomes in life.
So, obviously you oppose racism, but what do you believe to be behind sexism and racism in current society? Religion, current culture, the state?
That needs to be challenged at every level, from education to healthcare to politics.
Do you think the state is what we need to stop this?
Nor should my views be construed as meritocratic, because some people do need a bit more assistance than others - take the disabled for example.
Capitalism is inherently meritocratic. If your defining being meritocratic as living on your own merit in society. Obviously there can be dependence like charity, but capitalism itself is individualist.
To give everybody a good chance at having a good life, rather than those who already enjoy privilege, is to me the highest calling of social development.
Why do you accept social democracy(social interventions in capitalist framework) over socialism(state or market)?
Why don't you just support changing the structure of the economy as a whole to socialism instead of picking at capitalism with state policies?

Bi0Hazard: I'm not a capitalist in any sort of absolute sense. My own idea of a free market rests heavily on the assurance of negative freedoms, that is, freedom from the consequences of the decisions of others. And that requires a VAST amount of government intervention to ensure choices can be perfectly "free" in that regard. Of course money is the biggest system of control and power ever devised, more far-reaching than political power itself, so it's on the government's shoulders to redistribute that money in the face of that capitalist structure. At the same time, I also agree with the social credit folks that money is a ticketing system. It creates the illusion of justice for the distribution of resources, which are in fact collectively generated through hundreds of thousands of years of social progress that nobody can claim the credit for.

Hierarchy is all about the imposition of power structures in a social context. So the decisions we make are a power structure. Those who make poor decisions have less power. It's structured because there are elements defining a clear separation ... in my example, the imposition is the choice to smoke, and the structure is health outcomes (there may also be other structures ie financial etc). Other examples of social barriers might be for example geographic barriers, where those living in certain areas have unequal access to resources.

Such structures are universally imposed by those seeking to legitimize their own power over others. There is no legitimate reason for their existence in this day and age - we have the technology now to reorganize the world quite equitably. However, there is a lack of will and political capital to achieve these ends. States are only the beginning of what I believe should change, but they are a necessary part of it.

Socialism and capitalism both have their pros and cons. My biggest problem with absolute socialism is that it's either too difficult to manage on a macroeconomic scale, or aggressively managed through the imposition of another power structure, usually total state control. It's all problematic. People shouldn't feel they are restricted to whatever labels previous scholars have called things, as the only valid enumeration of possible political or economic views. Sometimes we're all just seeing different aspects of the truth.

Bi0Hazard: The definitions you provided aren't very accurate and are very general but if you want me to answer based on those then I'm right - though even with this definition I do disagree with some of the things stated in the RW definition.

Famousdebater: The definitions you provided aren't very accurate and are very general
They are the most accurate. The other ones like the nolan chart are terrible.

admin: I'm not a capitalist in any sort of absolute sense. My own idea of a free market rests heavily on the assurance of negative freedoms, that is, freedom from the consequences of the decisions of others.
In capitalism, the working class is under the capitalists. Negative liberty is freedom from constraint, but by what you say, capitalism is then a violation of negative liberty since the capitalists makes most decisions on the workers.
And that requires a VAST amount of government intervention to ensure choices can be perfectly "free" in that regard.
Government intervention only restricts, unless there is some control violating freedom inherent in capitalism that the state can remove. If so, point it out.
Of course money is the biggest system of control and power ever devised, more far-reaching than political power itself,
Capitalism itself is voluntary and free of coercion, state control(political power) is much different.
so it's on the government's shoulders to redistribute that money in the face of that capitalist structure.
That is part of social democracy.
Hierarchy is all about the imposition of power structures in a social context. So the decisions we make are a power structure. Those who make poor decisions have less power. It's structured because there are elements defining a clear separation ... in my example, the imposition is the choice to smoke, and the structure is health outcomes (there may also be other structures ie financial etc). Other examples of social barriers might be for example geographic barriers, where those living in certain areas have unequal access to resources.
I don't know if you know the definition, here it is: Hierarchy- a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority.
Such structures are universally imposed by those seeking to legitimize their own power over others. There is no legitimate reason for their existence in this day and age - we have the technology now to reorganize the world quite equitably. However, there is a lack of will and political capital to achieve these ends. States are only the beginning of what I believe should change, but they are a necessary part of it.
What do you mean by organizing the world "equitably"?
My biggest problem with absolute socialism is that it's either too difficult to manage on a macroeconomic scale, or aggressively managed through the imposition of another power structure, usually total state control. It's all problematic.
There are different varieties of socialism as well. Not just state ownership, but I would agree on that.

Bi0Hazard: Providing a short, concise definition of left and right wing is difficult so you're probably right about this being the most accurate. However, you could have just asked whether we're left or right wing without the definitions. That would have been easier since in order to accurately explain what left and right wing are you need more than a few sentences.

Bi0Hazard: I'm a lot more right than left.

Bi0Hazard: As I said I'm not an absolute capitalist. The control in capitalism is exactly that power system, and it violates freedom to determine one's own whole standing with good or bad decisions. So we need to understand why people behave in socially normative or deviant ways, rather than make blanket assumptions based on economic power as absolute capitalism tends to do. If somebody controls my means of production that's hardly what I would call voluntary.

I don't know if you understand that your definition is effectively equivalent to mine for hierarchy. Systems are structures, people are social and ranking is power. Weber talked a lot about it. Such structures are, in my view, damaging to that notion of equity I addressed, by which I mean, the lack of barriers to equality of opportunity. It's very close to equality. Other varieties of socialism, as I mentioned, are impossible to manage on a macroeconomic scale, a little like anarchy itself.

admin: As I said I'm not an absolute capitalist.
But you accept the capitalist framework.
The control in capitalism is exactly that power system, and it violates freedom to determine one's own whole standing with good or bad decisions.
No it doesn't. Are you saying if I make a bad decision and lose my job and become homeless, that is violation of freedom?
If somebody controls my means of production that's hardly what I would call voluntary.
In capitalism, the means of production are largely owned individually, nobody owns "your" means of production, you own yours.
Such structures are, in my view, damaging to that notion of equity I addressed, by which I mean, the lack of barriers to equality of opportunity. It's very close to equality.
Oh ok, now I understand.
Other varieties of socialism, as I mentioned, are impossible to manage on a macroeconomic scale, a little like anarchy itself.
Other varieties like collective socialism are not handled large scale anyways.

Bi0Hazard: But you accept the capitalist framework.
Not entirely.

Are you saying if I make a bad decision and lose my job and become homeless, that is violation of freedom?
Yes. You have lost freedom, although some might argue that losing some freedom is justifiable in some cases. Making a bad decision and going to prison is also a violation of freedom.

In capitalism, the means of production are largely owned individually
The irony is you just said that in capitalism losing your job means losing your home. Clearly you don't own anything in capitalism. Money owns you.

Other varieties like collective socialism are not handled large scale anyways.
That's a problem.

admin: Not entirely.
You either do or you don't, and you do. Social liberals accept the capitalist framework, they just also want state policies and public goods to "correct" capitalism.
Yes. You have lost freedom, although some might argue that losing some freedom is justifiable in some cases. Making a bad decision and going to prison is also a violation of freedom.
Positive liberty, not negative. Prison violates negative liberty by constraint(and has some positive liberty from food given). In the case of positive liberty, you will always lack some of it.
The irony is you just said that in capitalism losing your job means losing your home.
No I didn't, I made an example. The example was that if you lose your job and became homeless, but in many cases, losing your job does mean losing your home. Nevertheless, the means of production are still individually owned, you can still own a means of production.
Clearly you don't own anything in capitalism. Money owns you.
Yeah, production, food, and labor owns you as well. Indeed, in a way you are a slave to money(coming from labor) in capitalism, but you still accept it(with social liberalism).
That's a problem.
Would you consider capitalism as managed on a macroeconomic scale?

Bi0Hazard: I don't know that there has to be that dichotomy. An economy can take on elements of capitalism and elements from outside it. To define an economy by the framework of an idea limits you in a policy sense.

I was correct in my use of negative liberty. What you're talking about is a lack of liberty, not negative liberty. The two are totally opposite.

What means of production do you think you inherently own in an absolute capitalist framework? The whole point of capitalism is that capital is private and exclusive. In such a system is becomes advantageous to accumulate more and more capital to the exclusion of others. That's inequality, so the only people who own means of production are producers. Such does not provide for the non-producers, who own nothing. Even one's body may be privatized, even life - it depends on how exclusively you want to take capitalism. The great downfall of capitalism is that it is not sustainable - the greed of those at the top is their undoing, as we see time and time again by virtue of revolution and civil unrest. Sustainable economic structures provide the same or roughly the same opportunities to all. I say money owns people because money is the representation of accumulated capital, which is used to control and diminish the value of others. This idea that one can own a means of production is selfish at best and deluded at worst. Reality is that all that apparent production is exclusionary, and therefore non-valuable.

I accept money as a medium of exchange. I wouldn't base economics on it.

Capitalism can be very well managed over the medium term on a macroeconomic scale. Not all capitalism is created equal in that respect.

admin: I don't know that there has to be that dichotomy. An economy can take on elements of capitalism and elements from outside it. To define an economy by the framework of an idea limits you in a policy sense.

Capitalism is private ownership of production and profit motive, social liberals still accept it, they just want the state to do more.
I was correct in my use of negative liberty. What you're talking about is a lack of liberty, not negative liberty. The two are totally opposite.
As far as I know, I never equated negative liberty with the absence of liberty.
What means of production do you think you inherently own in an absolute capitalist framework?
Whatever I own at the moment, if any.
The great downfall of capitalism is that it is not sustainable - the greed of those at the top is their undoing, as we see time and time again by virtue of revolution and civil unrest.
It is funny that you say this and still accept the framework of capitalism.
This idea that one can own a means of production is selfish at best and deluded at worst. Reality is that all that apparent production is exclusionary, and therefore non-valuable.
You sound like a socialist. I realized you talk like a socialist but is really(at least claims) a social democrat.
I accept money as a medium of exchange. I wouldn't base economics on it.
What would you base economics on?
Capitalism can be very well managed over the medium term on a macroeconomic scale. Not all capitalism is created equal in that respect.
Oh, then if that is the case, then collective market socialism should be able to as well. Actually, I believe it can.

Bi0Hazard: So are you assuming I believe everything that other social liberals or social democrats believe? In general I tend to argue with people everywhere.

For what it's worth, I don't believe in private ownership of production or a profit motive in absolute senses either. I absolutely oppose the imposition of a capitalist framework on the market. That is not to say however that I would not support an economy where somebody acts as a private producer or makes a profit. I simply don't believe the economy should be based on it as a framework. Economics is the study of value, and specifically how value moves in markets through a process of exchange. Value can't be created or destroyed like money can - if you try to print more money, for example, the value of each unit of currency is diminished. In fact value perfectly obeys Newton's 3 laws - it also is entropic, reactive etc. Likewise if new products emerge that are cool, then older products lose their value. Since value is constant, all profit is normal (ie at cost) in the long run. In the short run a company can make supernormal or subnormal profits - this is explained by the RBV, that resources will immediately determine winners/losers in the market. Yet this is a short run explanation - long term those things normalize every time. Private ownership exacerbates that illusion because it provides the incentive for greed.

Negative liberty = freedom from. Positive liberty = freedom to. Absence of liberty = removal of freedom. When people are put in prison that's an example of removing their freedom of movement (freedom to move, a positive liberty), to ensure the negative freedom of the rest of society. Prison violates positive liberty, not negative as you claimed. It does so by an absence of liberty. I really believe you are conflating it with negative liberty.

Things are "means of production" only insofar as they are means. When you cannot exploit them they are worthless, much like non-liquid assets are relatively worthless. So "whatever you own" isn't inherently a factor of production.

Collective market socialism doesn't have common standards for cooperation. You'll never get people just agreeing to build an airport without some leadership heirarchy. Mind you, most forms of capitalism can't do that either for anything that's unprofitable yet very important. Like everyone found out during the industrial revolution.