• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

inconsistency in the Left and Right

laska

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2005
Messages
3,237
Reaction score
402
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I have tried to analyze the U.S. political ideologies on the Left and the Right and it seems to me many individuals on both sides of the spectrum tend to share an inconsistency when it comes to applying protection of behavior under the umbrella of freedom.

Each side has no problem limiting individual freedom on those issues they believe would benefit society. The Left may support laws that restrict individual and corporate behavior on such issues as the environment, civil rights, and labor issues. The Right may support restrictions on such issues such as pornography, prostitution, and gambling. The problem is that while each side supports restrictions on some behavior that goes against their personal value system, other behaviors that do not seem morally wrong to them, they try to protect by saying the behavior is protected under banner of freedom, using language such as freedom of speech, right to privacy, or that the government does not have the explicit permission from the Constitution to interfere in this area. This is inconsistent as both sides use the libertarian type freedom selectively depending on if the behavior agrees with their personal view of what is virtuous or not.

What type of government did Madison and the founders set up. I believe they wanted to protect human agency and also form a government that fosters greater freedom and happiness(freedom defined as the type of freedom that results from obedience to true and virtuous principles(not enslaved to ones passions)) In order to protect agency a structure needed to be put in place to make it as hard as possible for individuals, factions, or other nations to undermine it. In order to promote greater freedom, the government then would have to have enough flexibility to implement laws and principles that are virtuous. Virtue and thus greater freedom is the purpose of the government.

When the Founders were pondering on a structure to protect agency, human nature was the great problem. They tried to make it as hard as possible for individuals and factions to undermine agency by creating a government where the fundamental human rights are transparent, a written Bill of Rights(Madison may have originally not seen the value of this but he later changed his mind), and by creating a structure that tries to guide selfish human nature along virtuous paths in order to protect agency. They did this by creating separate powers of government(executive, legislature, judiciary) with transparent duties and checks and balances between them. Also, various virtue mechanisms such as indirect elections, age requirements, term limits, etc.

It seems to me also that the Founders also created a living document by giving the Constitution an amendment process and the use of ambiguous language in parts of it so that the government could evolve into a more virtuous union in the future. In my view many wrongly interpreted the spirit of the Constitution in this regards by giving government the ability to act only on those powers expressly stated in the Constitution, making the document more rigid than it was meant to be. The belief in economic laissez faire in the 19th century allowed a small and powerful segment of the population to enslave the majority as many worked in horrible conditions in mines and factories, where they were given just enough wages to keep them alive day by day and dependent. In my view the government has the right to implement labor laws as they foster greater freedom and well being overall to society.

A few more examples would be the Civil Rights movement in the sixties. Some on the Right argued for state rights, that segregation should be left to the states. I believe the Left was correct that the Federal government has the responsibility of protecting any abuses to the Bill of Rights. (Another area where the Left has been right imo is in the environmental area, as far as the need to become better stewards over the earth.)

The areas where the Left may be wrong imo is in the area of economic freedom or the redistribution of wealth by the "force" of government edict and the unintended consequences inherent in many of their economic policies; the use of Libertarian type freedom to protect many morally wrong behavior; and poor structural design on welfare that does not take into consideration human nature and the unintended consequences of their policies.
 
Last edited:

MiamiFlorida

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
434
Reaction score
1
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
laska said:
I have tried to analyze the U.S. political ideologies on the Left and the Right and it seems to me many individuals on both sides of the spectrum tend to share an inconsistency when it comes to applying protection of behavior under the umbrella of freedom.

Each side has no problem limiting individual freedom on those issues they believe would benefit society. The Left may support laws that restrict individual and corporate behavior on such issues as the environment, civil rights, and labor issues. The Right may support restrictions on such issues such as pornography, prostitution, and gambling. The problem is that while each side supports restrictions on some behavior that goes against their personal value system, other behaviors that do not seem morally wrong to them, they try to protect by saying the behavior is protected under banner of freedom, using language such as freedom of speech, right to privacy, or that the government does not have the explicit permission from the Constitution to interfere in this area. This is inconsistent as both sides use the libertarian type freedom selectively depending on if the behavior agrees with their personal view of what is virtuous or not.

What type of government did Madison and the founders set up. I believe they wanted to protect human agency and also form a government that fosters greater freedom and happiness(freedom defined as the type of freedom that results from obedience to true and virtuous principles(not enslaved to ones passions)) In order to protect agency a structure needed to be put in place to make it as hard as possible for individuals, factions, or other nations to undermine it. In order to promote greater freedom, the government then would have to have enough flexibility to implement laws and principles that are virtuous. Virtue and thus greater freedom is the purpose of the government.

When the Founders were pondering on a structure to protect agency, human nature was the great problem. They tried to make it as hard as possible for individuals and factions to undermine agency by creating a government where the fundamental human rights are transparent, a written Bill of Rights(Madison may have originally not seen the value of this but he later changed his mind), and by creating a structure that tries to guide selfish human nature along virtuous paths in order to protect agency. They did this by creating separate powers of government(executive, legislature, judiciary) with transparent duties and checks and balances between them. Also, various virtue mechanisms such as indirect elections, age requirements, term limits, etc.

It seems to me also that the Founders also created a living document by giving the Constitution an amendment process and the use of ambiguous language in parts of it so that the government could evolve into a more virtuous union in the future. In my view many wrongly interpreted the spirit of the Constitution in this regards by giving government the ability to act only on those powers expressly stated in the Constitution, making the document more rigid than it was meant to be. The belief in economic laissez faire in the 19th century allowed a small and powerful segment of the population to enslave the majority as many worked in horrible conditions in mines and factories, where they were given just enough wages to keep them alive day by day and dependent. In my view the government has the right to implement labor laws as they foster greater freedom and well being overall to society.

A few more examples would be the Civil Rights movement in the sixties. Some on the Right argued for state rights, that segregation should be left to the states. I believe the Left was correct that the Federal government has the responsibility of protecting any abuses to the Bill of Rights. (Another area where the Left has been right imo is in the environmental area, as far as the need to become better stewards over the earth.)

The areas where the Left may be wrong imo is in the area of economic freedom or the redistribution of wealth by the "force" of government edict and the unintended consequences inherent in many of their economic policies; the use of Libertarian type freedom to protect many morally wrong behavior; and poor structural design on welfare that does not take into consideration human nature and the unintended consequences of their policies.
Very interesting...but I think you are referring to the extreme left and extreme right...both equally intolerant.
 
Top Bottom