What are right-wing/conservative politics if not the preservation of social heirarchy?

Author: Username

Posts

Total: 126
#61
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@fauxlaw
to educate them them, along with all their children. You're really going to use education as a negative foil. Very progressive of you
I see.  So your precious "nuclear family" must be ripped apart in order to "educate" children (and specifically to convert them to your preferred religion)?

That doesn't sound particularly "pro family" to me.
#62
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism[1][2] characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, as well as strong regimentation of society and of the economy[3] which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.[4] The first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I, before spreading to other European countries.[4] Opposed to liberalism, Marxism, and anarchism, fascism is placed on the far right within the traditional left–right spectrum.

Do you happen to oppose liberalism, Marxism, and anarchism??

I oppose fascism. I oppose Nazism. I oppose Marxism and Anarchism.

The first three are proponents of big government - the latter - proponents of delusion. 

Probably I fit more within the Libertarian definition of politics - yet I take the view it is neither LEFT nor RIGHT. 

Right Wing and Left Wing political systems are both advocates of BIG Government. In both systems, despite their rhetoric, they are beasts of control and manipulation. Saying all the have the same rights is not the same as giving everyone the same. Egalitarian thought - or Liberal thought - basically comes down to either what do the majority think is good or what do some people in some back room think is good. 




#63
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
The key lesson of Animal Farm is that loyal police dogs and a good lie are all you need to live a long and happy life.
Nuh. The key lesson in Animal Farm is that hierarchy is inescapable. There are always going to be someone in your life telling you what to do. 

 
#64
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@oromagi
Did I say five voting rights were excessive? No. I said we still don't have it right. You'll note that I mentioned that the Constitution + amendments mention voting in various iterations of that concept, and that most of them are in the amendments. What I did not say is also that most in the articles refer to Congress voting on legislation, not on citizens voting for representatives, senators and presidents, let alone local and state leaders.  I do not think that was an oversight. I think the Founders thought it did not need such varied definition: adult citizens vote. Period. Just like the census was designed originally as just counting citizens' noses. It was only later that we decided to differentiate ourselves by gender, race, age, and creed. What difference does it make, infrastructure-wise, really? Do we educate ourselves by our race? Do we build roads according to our age? We've legally segregated ourselves with useless results. I answered my 2010 and 2020 census with a simple message: "I am a nose. Count that."
#65
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
No. You conclude incorrectly. Try again
#66
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,083
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
And there are always going to people who want to be told what to do.
#67
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
So you agree with me then? 
#68
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,083
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
Hierarchy is inescapable.
Yep, I was certainly agreeing with this sentiment.
#69
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Username
The way I see it, any free society is inherently hierarchical. People are raised different, have different genetics, and make different decisions. This leads to different outcomes.

Any drastic attempt to close those differences results in less freedom, less incentive to raise in the hierarchy, etc.

Hierarchy doesn’t mean having castes or something in place to keep people in a “lower station” or anything of the sort.

Egalitarianism is based on the lie that everyone is equal and that any difference must be the result of some wrong being done against them.
#70
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,014
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@bmdrocks21
Egalitarianism is based on the lie that everyone is equal and that any difference must be the result of some wrong being done against them.

It is also based on the lie that everyone naturally makes the exact same lifestyle choices.
Topic's author
#71
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@bmdrocks21
I disagree. 

Say you're the leader of a state. Your economy is based on coal. You have CEO's presiding over various coal companies where their workers are forced to work an average of 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, with little protection from danger or the diseases that come with overexposure to coal. Death is everywhere and malnourishment, dehydration, and suffering are pervasive. CEOs only have to pay their workers a couple of cents. If the workers don't like it, they can always move to another coal company with similar CEOs and similar conditions.

You have two options: 

1: Continue the current "free" mode of society, where you, as a fiscal Libertarian, refuse to intervene at all in the economy

or 

2: Force CEOs to give their workers protections from danger and disease, raise the wage so that every worker can feed themselves, ban 10+ hour workdays, and ensure that appropriate supplies of water and food are given so that workers don't die. In addition, give workers small, comparitively weak Labor Unions where they can negotiate various terms with the CEOs.

Now, assume that these policies generally help the workers. Answer honestly: is option 1 more "free" than option 2? I say no; to be honest, option 2 is likely more free. But option 2 won't always be more free; if the said leader of the state chose to turn the economy into a Communist dictatorship, we may be as chained, if not more, than we were before. But the point I'm getting at is that it is rare that a removal of power goes on in economics (or, more accurately, rarer than Austrian school types like to think), and thus, compared to our expectations, a removal of freedom is rare. More accurately, it can be said that power and freedom are transferred. In option 1, the CEOs have more freedom and power than others. In the second, the government and the workers have more power and freedom. So I think it's safe to conclude that any free society isn't inherently heirarchical, and any heirarchical society isn't inherently free. Option 1 was more heirarchical and less free, and option 2 was less heirarchical and more free. 

As a postscript,  I saw you talk about castes and their relationship to heirarchy. I think what you fail to realize is that right-wing politics predate concepts of capitalism and freedom. The term right, as we know it, originates in France, where supporters of the Monarchy sat on the right side of the parliament or whatever. If you know anything about Monarchist pre-revolutionary French society and how it was organized, you know it wasn't very free for anyone in the lower class (which was most of the population). It was definitely heirarchical tho. 

Castes, feudalism, fascism, etc. are all concepts that fly in the face of freedom but are, and are recognized as, right-wing due to their heirarchical structure. And heirarchy, along with the preservation of social institutions (these two intersect often) make up right-wing politics. The whole freedom thing was just a rebranding campaign, and it is reflected in the right's views towards gays, abortion, immigration, and trade. 

sorry 4 the rant
#72
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,014
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Username
where their workers are forced to work..

I kinda lost focus after this wild statement. We don't live in communist China with forced labor.

No offense, but what Marxist manifesto were you raised on. 3rd edition perhaps?
Topic's author
#73
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Greyparrot
Holy shit it's a hypothetical about how heirarchy doesn't neccesarily correlate with economic freedom, or that state intervention doesn't neccesarily correlate with a lack of economic freedom. You completely missed the point in order to call me a Marxist.
#74
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,014
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Username
Hypothetically speaking, America will never be a place where people will ever be "forced to work" as it is currently a welfare state rewarding people for not working and trending more that way.

And the ones that do choose to work are encouraged not to work too hard or they will be penalized with a sin tax for making too much money.
Topic's author
#75
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Greyparrot
It's a hypothetical. It's not supposed to have real world relevance. 
#76
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Username
You’re making the assumption that I am a libertarian or that I am sympathetic to libertarian economic ideals. Just to set the record straight, I generally am not. Conservative is often confused with them after a different “rebranding campaign” than the one you mentioned. Mainly the Reagan era and the ensuing neoconservative era of the GOP. Conservatives based on the universal definition are mainly concerned with the social side such as maintaining order, focusing on the family unit, etc.

I believe in worker protections, although I assume that I support less than yourself. Your model was very simplistic in its nature, and simply reducing immigration (thus creating a tight labor market) would make such a scenario impossible, as workers would have more economic bargaining power. You would need a crackpot open borders, no regulation environment for such an example to be possible.

While you are correct in saying that there are hierarchical societies that don’t promote freedom, I didn’t challenge that directly. I simply stated that any free society is hierarchical since everyone is different and egalitarianism generally focuses on disparities of outcome. Closing those disparities almost always involves infringing on another’s freedom.

It also depends on the type of hierarchy you focus on. I was mainly concerned with wealth, which is based on personal decisions and work. I’d have to look into how the “employee/employer structure” you described applies to how hierarchy is generally defined by the right-wing.

Finally, you are correct in your gay marriage, immigration, etc. analogy
Conservatives believe in structured order and aforementioned traditional social values. We aren’t all about maximizing freedom as libertarians are. We are generally for maximizing freedom in ways that don’t conflict with traditional social values while still maintaining order
#77
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tradesecret
I oppose Marxism and Anarchism.

Probably I fit more within the Libertarian definition of politics - yet I take the view it is neither LEFT nor RIGHT. 
What's the difference between anarchism and libertarianism?
#78
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@bmdrocks21
Closing those disparities almost always involves infringing on another’s freedom.
FREEDOM AND EQUALITY ARE INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL.
#79
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@bmdrocks21
We aren’t all about maximizing freedom as libertarians are. We are generally for maximizing freedom in ways that don’t conflict with traditional social values while still maintaining order
In other words, "maximizing freedom" for "traditionalists" (and restricting the "freedom" of "non-traditionalists").
#80
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tradesecret
Egalitarian thought - or Liberal thought - basically comes down to either what do the majority think is good or what do some people in some back room think is good. 
That is literally indistinguishable from Conservative thought - or Libertarian thought.
#81
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tradesecret
There are always going to be someone in your life telling you what to do. 
Yes, ideally the "leaders" fulfill the will of their constituents (or suffer the consequences).
#82
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@fauxlaw
Do we educate ourselves by our race? Do we build roads according to our age? We've legally segregated ourselves with useless results.
I agree 100%
#83
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@bmdrocks21
Egalitarianism is based on the lie that everyone is equal and that any difference must be the result of some wrong being done against them.
How about we give people an equal education, and make inheritances and nepotism illegal.

Would that see fair to you?
#84
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Username
CEOs only have to pay their workers a couple of cents. If the workers don't like it, they can always move to another coal company with similar CEOs and similar conditions.
FREEDOM TO COERCE AND EXPLOIT IS NOT FREEDOM.
#85
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Username
So I think it's safe to conclude that any free society isn't inherently heirarchical, and any heirarchical society isn't inherently free.
A truly voluntary society would require each individual to truly be "secure in their persons".

In order to make this a reality, each person would require enough fertile land to feed themselves, free access to potable water, and true land ownership (no land tax).

If every citizen had these basic necessities, they could work or not work for whomever they wished for as long or as short a time period as they wished.

NO REGULATION REQUIRED.
#86
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,083
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Natural hierarchy is dictated by the capability of the individual.

People are just not equal.

That is why hypothetical (true) socialism is unachievable, and why all attempts at such, have always failed catastrophically.
#87
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@3RU7AL
FREEDOM AND EQUALITY ARE INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL.
Generally, yes.

In other words, "maximizing freedom" for "traditionalists" (and restricting the "freedom" of "non-traditionalists").
Not at all. Everyone has the same “freedoms” and limitations applied to them. It is all about what world you would like your children to live in. One in which the family is paramount and drug use, ho-ing around, etc are stigmatized. Or one in which you can act as degenerate as possible and hope everything works out, and everyone calls you “brave” for doing so.

How about we give people an equal education, and make inheritances and nepotism illegal.

Would that see fair to you?
Seems unfair and impossible. Unless everyone goes to the same school with same teachers, it is not possible to have the same education.

I don’t personally like nepotism, but inheritances are important. You work your whole life so that you can leave something to your loved ones. Otherwise they would waste that money on useless junk before they die
#88
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,014
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@bmdrocks21
Otherwise they would waste that money on useless junk before they die.

It's highly unlikely a person would choose to work beyond their means if they could not pass it on to their kids.

The American State has a long history of penalizing people that work too much with sin taxes.
#89
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Greyparrot
Honestly, most people would either work less or spend all of their money on garbage if it was all going to go to the government if they didn’t.

Pretty much any way of using money is better than having it go to a bunch of wasteful programs
#90
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@zedvictor4
Natural hierarchy is dictated by the capability of the individual.
So, not by inheritance and nepotism?

People are just not equal.
People are generally much more fungible than we commonly believe.

That is why hypothetical (true) socialism is unachievable, and why all attempts at such, have always failed catastrophically.
Including the socialism we find ourselves embroiled in at this very moment?