• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Help me with a definition

paterfamilias

paterfamilias

Seasoned Member
Real Person
Male
We talk a fair bit of politics here and we have a good number of political hounds here so I thought I would ask the group to define Right Wing for me.

Political, cultural or economic. Hit me with one or all.

I am more than a little bit of a political hound myself but I will reserve my definition till a few others have weighed in.
 
Any sarcasm aside, my personal litmus:

Understands that our Rights come from our Creator, and that the singular purpose of government is to "secure them."
 
paterfamilias said:
We talk a fair bit of politics here and we have a good number of political hounds here so I thought I would ask the group to define Right Wing for me.

Political, cultural or economic. Hit me with one or all.

I am more than a little bit of a political hound myself but I will reserve my definition till a few others have weighed in.
Click to expand...
Primary distinction is that right is for quality/hierarchy instead of equality.

Also favouring localism instead of gigantism.
 
paterfamilias said:
We talk a fair bit of politics here and we have a good number of political hounds here so I thought I would ask the group to define Right Wing for me.
Click to expand...
A political group that, by convention, sits on the right-hand side of a chamber of parliament.

I think the term dates back to the French Revolutionary parliament, where the relatively more "conservative" (or rather, less radically revolutionary) group of representatives happened to sit together on the right, and a tradition was formed. That's all. There is no set of policies that are "right-wing", the policies associated with each "side" of the house vary drastically from country to country and from generation to generation.
 
For fun:
 
To illustrate how this changes:

Personal freedom / economic liberalism was originally a "left-wing" idea, back a couple of centuries ago when our political systems were formed. Back then, the fight was between conservatives who supported the existing aristocracy owning most resources and running the show, and progressives who wanted people to have private property and be free to pursue their own interests without answering to the local lord. Which was a radical, progressive idea. And which was successful.

So now, the "conservative" / "right-wing" is in favour of conserving that free-market system, while the "progressive" / "left-wing" is in favour of establishing a new authoritarian system. The policy positions of left and right have completely reversed.
 
FollowingHim said:
So now, the "conservative" / "right-wing" is in favour of conserving that free-market system, while the "progressive" / "left-wing" is in favour of establishing a new authoritarian system. The policy positions of left and right have completely reversed.
Click to expand...
While there is truth in that comment, Samuel, I think that it applies more to the "conservative" concept than 'right'.

What is to be 'conserved'?

Once totalitarianism is in place, some of us will argue little or nothing remains WORTH conserving.

But there's always the understanding that we can, and should, RETURN to Him.
 
Anymore I prefer a different way of viewing politics than the overly dramatic right/left paradigm.

It's this:

Free <---------> Less Free <---------> Not Free

I came to this consideration because too many people on the left and right are tolerant of authoritarianism.

Myself, I don't care what flavor of elected/selected/anointed dictatorship you have, left or right, I don't want one.
 
FollowingHim said:
To illustrate how this changes:

Personal freedom / economic liberalism was originally a "left-wing" idea, back a couple of centuries ago when our political systems were formed. Back then, the fight was between conservatives who supported the existing aristocracy owning most resources and running the show, and progressives who wanted people to have private property and be free to pursue their own interests without answering to the local lord. Which was a radical, progressive idea. And which was successful.

So now, the "conservative" / "right-wing" is in favour of conserving that free-market system, while the "progressive" / "left-wing" is in favour of establishing a new authoritarian system. The policy positions of left and right have completely reversed.
Click to expand...
Can't be.


Aristocracy owning most is just 80/20. Christendom has always supported private property. It was heretics who had idea of ownership in common.

What was specific from Middle Age is usage rights. Then then didn't have concept of Lockean exclusivity for property.

Like you buy forest where local peasant had right to catch 20 rabbits yearly.
 
I think you need to spend more time reading up about 19th century European politics @MemeFan. It was a fascinating century. I'd strongly recommend the Revolutions podcast series if you want a deep dive into it.
 
Mark C said:
Libertarians draw it in two axes, noting that there are authoritarians in BOTH the 'personal' and 'economic' dimensions, and tyranny can take place in both arenas (and almost always does.)
Click to expand...

Which is why libertarians rarely win elections. They make things too complicated or they talk in terms that few people understand. Ron Paul and to a lesser extent his son Rand Paul are fine examples of this.

They are indeed men of great intellect but they really need to remember that they're communicating with a mass of people who think a man can become a woman simply by saying so.

I simply distill it all down to an easily understood Free <---------> Less Free <---------> Not Free

And most governments are in the Less Free <---------> Not Free section.
 
MeganC said:
Which is why libertarians rarely win elections.
Click to expand...
Sadly, that's not the real reason. The system is rigged, and elections simply...aren't.

How many actually honest people with any integrity win elections now?

And understanding that liberty must be BOTH personal, and economic, isn't at all complicated. It's just a fact, because they are inseparable.

MeganC said:
They make things too complicated or they talk in terms that few people understand. Ron Paul and to a lesser extent his son Rand Paul are fine examples of this.
Click to expand...
I had the privilege to get to know Ron a bit years ago. He succeeded because he was a true statesman, with genuine integrity, and had the gift of making liberty not only simple, but fundamental to people.

And, perhaps even more sadly, the reason folks think liberty is complicated, or unattainable, is because too many have been deliberately dumbed down. The can't, and won't, read EITHER Scripture, or their constitution.
 
Mark C said:
Sadly, that's not the real reason. The system is rigged, and elections simply...aren't.
Click to expand...
Real reason is we live in democracy.

And democracy is using voting to steal from your neighbors. Politicians promise free goodie for you while somebody else pays for them. Who would resist?

Any why such policies are systemically bad and getting people to accept is another problem.
 
MemeFan said:
Do you talk about disbanding of feudalism?
Click to expand...
"Disbanding" isn't what is happening; feudalism is being re-instituted (and it's mostly a done-deal) by the WEF/DeepState/fascist Public-Private Partnership.

And...
MemeFan said:
Real reason is we live in democracy.
Click to expand...
Actually, that was NEVER to be the case in the once-mostly-free united States. The word is NEVER, not once, used in ANY of the American founding documents (Declaration, Constitution) and, in fact, the 'checks and balances' form a specific PROHIBITION against the abuses the Founders specifically warned of:

"Such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention...incompatible with personal security, or the Rights of property, and in general have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." - James Madison (Federalist X)

"The Devil's own government." - Dr. Benjamin Rush

"Two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner." - Benjamin Franklin

"There has never been a democracy that did not commit suicide." - John Adams


So, I guess you could really say the real reason is ignorance and apathy.
 
MemeFan said:
Do you talk about disbanding of feudalism?
Click to expand...
Yes, that's part of it. I'm talking about the whole gamut of issues that the progressives of the day were fighting for in the early-mid 19th century. Much of the things that were "progressive" then are "conservative" now - and that means that much of the things that were considered "left" then are considered "right" now.

The major error people make is thinking that "right-wing" has always meant whatever "right-wing" people stand for today. They look at the present and think politics has always been this way. That is simply not the case. I mean, the last two posts feature @Mark C and @MeganC responding to your post above both thinking we're talking about disbanding feudalism in the present! Which we are not, we're discussing history, but this serves to illustrate my point. People's thinking gravitates to here and today.

The issues of the day are different from generation to generation. So "left" and "right" are simply labels that are assigned to a different package of policy positions in each generation and country.

Even comparing NZ and the USA in the present, our "right-wing" politicians would considered "left-wing" in the USA. Comparing the old USSR and the USA is even more illustrative, as those kicked out of the USSR or worse for being "right-wing" were still hard-left communists in our eyes. Left and right is all relative and applies only to a single context.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top