Is there a good argument in favor of eminent domain? If so I'd be interested to hear it...

Likewise, I demand that conservatives defend babyfucking. I heard about a conservative who did that once. In a book. Maybe it was a dream.

I know the logic here. Liberals are, by their nature, socialists with a strong Stalinist bent. Such people support government redistribution of any and all goods as services as necessary to satisfy their elaborate centralized plans. Liberals hate individuals and love the state, and have a deep cynicism about human nature (despite having utopian aspirations). Thus, they are irrational control freaks.

This is as good a point as any to ask: what is the definition of liberalism, and what is the definition of conservatism? It seems that there have been some arbitrary use of these terms lately on PME, especially the L-word. The funny thing is, this has not been confined to one or even two editors, and there seems to be a rash of it.

I propose that liberalism, as a general category, has statist and non-statist varieties. Even when we restrict our conversation to the average current American liberal, things are far from simple. For example, within the left there is definitely an anti-authoritarian streak running counter to its pro-government tendencies.

I'd wager that you'd have a hard time finding anyone of any political stripe who would be happy about the current eminent domain jurisprudence. What liberals are lauding this decision? A lot of the loopier leftists will frame this as a sinister trick by the administration to pave the way for ANWR, not to mention martial law and unrestricted surveillance via the Patriot Act. These are the counterparts to the conservatives who blame eminent domain decisions on Stalinist liberals.

>It seems that there have been some arbitrary use of these terms lately on PME, especially the L-word. The funny thing is, this has not been confined to one or even two editors, and there seems to be a rash of it.

Fella they dont have an argument.

So they would rather shadowbox with their uninformed strawman of what a liberal is.

Like UY has ever actually made an argument. It's pathetic that you can even say something as stupid and incorrect as that and attempt to keep a straight face.

It's called the USSC decision last year. Championed by LIBERALS who yell for more tax revenue and forced upon the People by LIBERAL judges. Even incorrectly claimed as a conservative notion. Hmmmmmm......let's see. Which judges came out against that decision again? Hmmmm...lemme see...O'Connor, Scalia, Thomas, and.....Rhenquist....all liberals I'm sure....

Interesting mayor they got....He specializes in commercial, personal injury, eminent domain and civil litigation representing a number of individuals, small local businesses, as well as national corporations.

They voted for the lawyer, they get screwed by the lawyer.

“Harbor Village is a key component to increasing the City's tax base,"

Sounds familiar. Now where did I hear that before?

"I'd wager that you'd have a hard time finding anyone of any political stripe who would be happy about the current eminent domain jurisprudence."

I agree.

But although this is not 'liberal' uses it is being put toward, it IS a liberal sort of logic that leads to it. Not all liberals...You make a good point about there being different sorts of liberals, and this spawns from a specific strain.

As Sarge pointed out, just look at how the judges broke down on this one. Might give some reason to pause and think just what kind of judge they really want.

It is a 'for the good of the many'/'can't make an omlette' argument that allows this use of eminant domain.

I do not think such arguments can be avoided completely when you task the 'good of the many' to the government. This is the fine line where socialism becomes communism.

It sure as hell isn't laizez-faire capitalism.

>>Like UY has ever actually made an argument.

I have.

Maybe one day you can as well.

But although this is not 'liberal' uses it is being put toward, it IS a liberal sort of logic that leads to it.

Actually, doing something so that they can raise more taxes than if they didn't do it IS a liberal thing.

I have.

I'd sure love to see that argument you've made. I know it isn't here.

Maybe one day you'll add something to a discussion.....maybe not.

WTF Sarge are part Parrot?

WTF Sarge are part Parrot?

WTF, UY no speaky englis?

WTF, UY gots nuttin' to say in his gibberish language?

Sorry, *are you*.

"Actually, doing something so that they can raise more taxes than if they didn't do it IS a liberal thing."

Federal, State and local governments have been using ED for years. When you do a head count, don't be supprised that you find few liberal millionaires in the group.

The tax base expansion phrase is used by both political parties and constantly saying "liberal" is weak.

What does it take to qualify as a liberal judge?

PS. Specifically a "Liberal" US Supreme Court judge?

"Opponents, however, call the plan a government-sanctioned land grab that benefits private developers and the wealthy."

Private developers and the wealthy "liberals?"

Hey Russ, look at the GDP per capita for the blue states and the red states.

Or the IQ.

Federal, State and local governments have been using ED for years. When you do a head count, don't be supprised that you find few liberal millionaires in the group.

Eminent domain isn't the issue when used correctly as the Constitution mandates. I have no problem with a community taking someones' houses to build a school or a highway. Using ED for taking private property from one person and giving it to another person for private use to generate more taxes is not what ED is supposed to be for.....unless you have the liberally translated Constitution that says "for public use" means "because it will raise more taxes." THAT's the tell-tale decision of a liberal judge.

Private developers and the wealthy "liberals?"

Wealthy liberals. You gotta problem with that? Don't you know where Riviera Beach, Florida is? Don't you know which county it's in and the wealthy and highly Democrat/liberal neighborhoods that're surrounding that not-so-wealthy community? You gonna deny that there're wealthy liberals?

"Hey Russ, look at the GDP per capita for the blue states and the red states."

Which year?

>>> wealthy "liberals?"

George Soros, Michael Moore, John Kerry and Drunken Horse Woman, 99.9% of Hollywood stars, Puff Duddy (or whatever the hell he calls himself...

Need I go on?

You don' think they exist?

There's nothing wrong with wealth, it's how a person chooses to use it. My issue is the constant blame or finger pointing toward liberals as a cause for problems in the US.

There are many facets of ED and raising taxes happens to be an attention getter. I think you understand this as well and to argue the lib vs con angle on this serves no value.

Sarge, You sink to a new low. The Constiutional interpretations you don't agree with are "liberal." You're getting to be the legal whiz kid at PME.

SF was right, this isn't a policy that all liberals would espouse, but it IS a policy that comes from the left. It is liberal policies that create this type of situation.

'Raising taxes' is an 'attention getter' because it is wrong to do that.

The other 'facets' are what we call 'non-sequitar'.

As far as liberals being responsible for everything bad in this country......well not EVERYTHING...

Yes, cause I'm sure Puff Doody uses his money for wonderful things that make the world a better place. But the rich oil tycoon doesn't give enough to charity, right?

"The other 'facets' are what we call 'non-sequitar'."

Like your ignorant red/blue state GDP comment?

Place a respectable argument on the board or return to your cereal bowl and cartoons! A good place to start might be a supporting argument for your red/blue comment. With a boost to kick you in the balls (if they had dropped yet) red and blue changes every other election except for the last two.

If you mean "Blue" collar liberal working class and "Red" commie "conservatives" we can go with that analogy.

"SF was right, this isn't a policy that all liberals would espouse, but it IS a policy that comes from the left. It is liberal policies that create this type of situation."

Stand up the next time you read a post from SF. Government, strong arming the little guy and taking their property is liberal ideology! Right!

You are such a little troll. Serves me right for bothering to respond to you.

"Like your ignorant red/blue state GDP comment?"

No, that was a reply to this "Private developers and the wealthy "liberals?""

You appear to be confused and disorientated. Possibly paranoid. Was it too much medication, or too little this time? Would you like me to call the CDC for you?

"red and blue changes every other election except for the last two. "

Wow Russ I sure am impressed! Smart enough to know that! Sadly, not smart enough to figgure out which year I'm talking about, though. I'll give you a hint, those 'neologisms' (word of the day, look that up) didn't become widespread until after the colors stopped alternating.

"If you mean "Blue" collar liberal working class and "Red" commie "conservatives" we can go with that analogy."

Yes we could, too bad the uh, what's the word...oh yeah, facts don't go along with it however.

Why don't you look it up? Oh, and no, we're not talking about 1934.

"strong arming the little guy and taking their property is liberal ideology! Right!"

Well at least we agree on something. It's called 'communism'.

this is the result of a liberal ideology like killing people is a conservative ideology.

Killing terrorists, yes. That is conservative.

I will admit that there is a kind of liberalism that this corresponds to. I explicated that in my sarcastic breakdown of Steve's reasoning. Make no mistake, there ARE such people. But I just don't think they are representative of any significant group in this country.

I know that the justices that decided in favor were the typically "liberal" judges. But these are only a small group of people. I think we can say, with great confidence, that almost every American's immediate reaction to this case (wasn't it Kelo vs. New Haven) is one of disgust. I don't think this will vary much according to party membership. There are also some forms of conservatism that would embrace this decision, and they are just as fringy as their leftist counterparts.

So, I'll take it back a step and say yes there is a kind of liberalism that this decision corresponds to. And this form of liberalism does get play in America at this time. But you can't force even these people to defend the most radical application of their philosophy. I agree with MJ, this crosses the line into Communism (or Facism). But how many self-described communists have you run into lately? I haven't met anyone who actually claims to be a communist in over a decade, and most of my friends are left-leaning.

Thus, it's a little annoying with Steve demands that liberals need to defend a decision that very few of them would support.

Championed by LIBERALS who yell for more tax revenue

Really? Which liberals championed this decision?

and forced upon the People by LIBERAL judges.

I can't deny that. However, if you can't find any other liberals to defend Kelo, can you say the justices are truly representative of anyone? If a conservative does something bad, are all conservatives forced to defend it?

"You are such a little troll. Serves me right for bothering to respond to you."

You with the hook in your lip and no intellectual responses and you call me troll. I don't have to look it up dumbass. The GDP per capita isn't necessarily reflective of Dem/Repup wealth.

The issue of ED isn't a liberal issue. It's Dr. Bowers obsession with anything he thinks he can tag the Dems with, call them "liberal", and take the heat off the current world political issues and politics. Last time he attacked the Libs on throwing the little guy out, it was Habitat for Humanaties.

For anyone to attempt the "it's the Liberals" on ED, is plain ignorance. What year? 2005 Which day? Dec, 12. Word of the Day? F-off!

Dec. 07

On a similar note (USSC analy rapes Average Joe):

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10366440/

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday that the government can seize a person’s Social Security benefits to pay old student loans.

Retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote the decision that went against a disabled man, James Lockhart, who had sued claiming he needed all of his $874 monthly check to pay for food and medication.

Lockhart, 67, a former postal worker who now lives in public housing in Seattle, has heart disease, diabetes and other health problems. He has about $77,000 in student loan debt.

Anyone who relies on SS to be there for them 40 years from now would probably be best off as a ward of the state anyway. Lest they hurt themselves....take too much medication and post incoherant rantings on conservative weblogs under the name Russ or something...

Government is not to be relied upon, for anything, ever, except to steal from you whenever it can, and try to micromanage your life for you in horrible incompitent ways. Laws need to be written with these truths in mind. SS needs reform, Bork needs to be on the bench, Kelo needs to be re-tried by order of senate. IF those 9 nitwits get it wrong again, we have to ammend the constitution to define "public use" in a more lawyerly manner.

While we're at it....Let's kill all the lawyers.

again Some fella is intellectually honest damnit.

A liar calling some intellectually dishonest and damning them to hell.

Does that count as stupid?

No, a college punk running around screaming LIAR LIAR! like a 2-year-old is, though. Grow up.

Sorry, but you borrow money, you need to be held accountable for paying it back. The guy is already mooching off the government (public housing).

Shit, if I had a $77,000 education, you would think I'd have put away SOME retirement money.

Of course, I don't know the guy's situation, I will admit that. But, in general, people need to be held personally accountable. If you owe a debt you must repay it. Period.

If I provide a service for someone, and they don't pay me for it, you're damn right I'm taking them to court to get my money.

Here's the deal as I see it, both I and SF have begrudgingly (ok, well him begrudgingly, me gleefully but half-heartedly) labeled this 'liberal'.

It is not 'liberal'. At least it is not because 'liberal' is not defined. How do you define 'liberal'? If we do not know what 'liberal' is, we cannot say what is or isn't liberal. I think it was a poor word choice on the part of the author at any rate, which I'll get to...but first...

I read this this morning and agree with it wholeheartedly. Suddenly it seems pertinent to this discussion. Is this a liberal decision? Well...what is liberal? I don't know...I would dearly love a liberal to explain to me exactly what modern liberalism (as a whole) stands for, if anything. What is your parties platform policy???? And what principle concepts drive those policies??? Inquiring minds want to know.

That being said, this IS absolutely leftist. Is it liberal? I do not know, but it is of the left. That is not to say most/many leftists support it, it is realized to be extreme even for some of the extreme leftists, it is presented dry and callously without any rhetorical flourish, and it is being applied mainly in the name of greed which wins very few leftists over, or very few of anyone over, when it's not thier own. But this is spawned by the policies, ideas and concepts that they have hatched and brought into the political scene and is a ramification thereof. For most of them, probably an unintended side effect.

Why that is worth noting (where it comes from) and debating is because to me, it signals a clear call for the immediate need for more old-school liberalism, Adam Smith/Ronald Reagan style. Surely no one looks at this finding and thinks to themselves 'we need judges to more leniently interpert our evolving living constitution in ways no one ever imagined possible' or 'we need more socialism and redistributionism' or 'we need more government powers to address and micromanage the dealings of society in order to fix it's woes'

"Of course, I don't know the guy's situation, I will admit that. But, in general, people need to be held personally accountable. If you owe a debt you must repay it. Period."

Fair enough...but sort of left-fieldish. My point was more about social security and the unreliablity of the government under any circumstance....and one more reason why we shouldn't trust them with the kind of power they are given these days.

>>a college punk running around screaming LIAR LIAR! like a 2-year-old is, though. Grow up.

W is a misleading liar.

You seem to concur since you did not even bother to respond to the challenge I posted.

Lisa did, she was proven wrong instantaneously but hey she tried.

My issue is the constant blame or finger pointing toward liberals as a cause for problems in the US.

Show me the liberal judges that voted against this ruling again.......I won't hold my breath too long.

Sarge, You sink to a new low.

I don't give a fuck how you think I've sunk. Not coming from an asshole like you.

The Constiutional interpretations you don't agree with are "liberal." You're getting to be the legal whiz kid at PME.

I believe in the original interpretation, not the "Well, it'll generate more taxes as a mall, than as a private residence." LIBERAL interpretation of "public use" in "nor shall private property be taken for public use." Earning more tax dollars from one private owner over another private owner of the same land is not "public use" in any manner. It's more lucritive PRIVATE use of the same land, but not "public use" no matter how much your liberal judges say it is. Yes, though not all liberals follow this interpretation, it IS a liberal interpretation. Stop translating the Constitution. It's in english.

Government, strong arming the little guy and taking their property is liberal ideology! Right!

How convenient of you to forget the little "taking it from a private owner and giving it to another private owner in an eminent domain ruse to earn more tax dollars for the community"....THAT is a liberal thing.

this is the result of a liberal ideology like killing people is a conservative ideology.

Ummmm....yeah....right. Still can't show me the liberal judges that were against this horrible decision?

And this form of liberalism does But how many self-described communists have you run into lately?

Every single day I leave my house, I run into self-admitted followers of communism.

For anyone to attempt the "it's the Liberals" on ED, is plain ignorance.

No you stupid UY-tutored fuck. THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE OF EMINENT DOMAIN. The ruling last June, not ED in general. How fucking stupid can you be? D'uh...ED is fully Constitutional. ED for the reason of THIS FUCKING CASE last June is not.

You liberals are completely nuts. As far as the definition of a liberal goes, MJ, liberals in the common vernacular, are people who believe that government and specifically, government run by them, for them, knows what is best for everyone else, which is exactly where the bastardization of ED comes in. Liberals think that if someone has what they determine to be a better use for your property -- defined in most cases as a use that is more profitable to the government -- they can just take your property in the name of another type of ED, economic development. Economic dvelopment to liberals means nothing more than how they can get more money for the government. If they can get more money from someone else that they can from you for the use they have for your property, the liberal Supreme Court has ruled that you are fucked. As much as liberals want to deny that this is a liberal/conservative issue, as you can see, they don't attempt defend the "settled law" in this case, choosing instead to throw out the red-herring of quibbling about what a liberal is. A liberal is someone who thinks it's okay to take your property if someone else can generate more tax revenue with it; at least that's what has become evident given the people they choose to elect and the people they approve of who sit on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Is it liberal? I do not know, but it is of the left.

Excellent points in general, MJ (except about needing to return to Reagan ;) It's very proper to point out the difference between leftism and liberalism. I use them interchangably, but I have to admit that 'leftism' is far more precise than 'liberalism'. Liberalism can mean many things, even more than leftism. At various times, it has been used to describe policies on both the right and the left. So let's drop 'liberalism' from this discussion.

I've been dying to discuss a definition of right versus left (I would have said conservative versus liberal yesterday). I'll post my definition of right(ism?) now, and I'll follow up with a post on leftism if there is any remaining interest.

As I see it, the right wing gives share to many different political philosophies, some of which are greatly at odds with each other. I've seen many attempts by rightists to disavow Fascism as an outgrowth of Socialism, but I've never found this compelling. After this, I think you'll see why.

So what do these parties all have in common? I can identify a few common themes. First, rightists believe strongly in a kind of natural order. The precise details of this order vary from party to party, sometimes radically, but there are, again, common themes. First, the natural order has a moral dimension; it will reward 'proper' behavior and punish 'improper' behavior. Second, it is nigh immutable, and attempts to subvert this order are doomed to failure.

Third, the natural order is fairly simple and elegant, and comprehensive, meaning that it claims to describe a majority of social dynamics. Finally, it usually claims to be common sense or otherwise head-smackingly obvious.

Before I go on, a few examples are in order. In the case of religious conservatives, the natural order is, of course, their religion. For libertarians, it is the invisible hand of the free market. For fascists, it is the tribal dynamic, be it race or nation-state.

There is another interesting trait of the right. In general, the loyalties of the right are very particular, e.g. THIS country, THESE people, etc. A leftist, by comparison, is more concerned with devotion to the philosophy itself. To a leftist that believes in democracy, if he believes that America has abandoned democracy, he's more likely to say "screw America". This affection for the particular is why the right has a greater reverence for tradition, and greater in-group cohesion.

Finally, if I had to sum up right versus left in a cute pithy phrase, I would describe it as "nature versus nurture", with rightists on the nature side. Leftists, by comparison, are apt to believe that a person is a product of his or her environment, and thus the person (and by extension, the society) is a blank slate with open possibilities. This is why the left has a more utopian outlook than the right. To the right, this is considered dangerous social engineering, because it flies in the face of whatever natural order that they believe we are departing from.

Comments?

Steve:

A liberal is someone who thinks it's okay to take your property if someone else can generate more tax revenue with it

OK, just find a liberal who explicitly agrees with that and I'll eat my words. If that's your operative definition, and this country has so many liberals, then it shouldn't be hard. I don't think you understand the people you are criticizing, and you're not backing up your point with...anything. You state it as if it is all so obvious, and I suspect that's what you really think.

OK, just find a liberal who explicitly agrees with that and I'll eat my words.

Let me be more specific: a liberal who is not on the supreme court. Whew, I almost had to eat some words.

Political science is an ambiguous science...it's almost like philosophy. Theren't arent many right or wrong answers, it's mostly a lot of wacking off. I just said earlier today I think, somewhere....or maybe it was yesterday...but I said that throughout history political groups have allways sucked at naming themselves appropriately. People have been arguing what 'democracy' or 'facism' or 'communism' ARE for thousands of years (less for the relatively newer two).

In all, anything we say without writing a book is grossly oversimplified and theres much more to it then that...That's part of my natural order;) People are complex systems, you can't sum up millions of them without a million and two caveats.

I'll address some of the things you say a bit because I find it interesting, but first, let me say you've gone WAY more deep then I intended. I was speaking on a much more shallow, practical level, like..the democrat party in 2006.

What are the principles that drive this party and what the heck is on thier platform other then 1) NOT what THEY are doing 2) What they are doing, but we'll do it better.

John Kerry's whole campaign is a Porgy & Bess song, 'Anything Bush can do, I can do better, I can do anything better then Bush'. What will you do different Kerry? - I'll do what Bush is doing, except I'll do it better! _OR_ I won't do what Bush is doing I'll tell you that!

I can tell you right now, Kelo is against conservative principles, because conservative principles can be roughly bullet-pointed. This goes against limited government, this goes against free markets, this goes plainly and grossly against private ownership and 'ownership societies', this goes against the will of the masses, this goes against the constitution as it was written to be interpereted when it was written.

A whole bunch of commentators jump on here to scream 'this isn't liberal!'....why not? What about it disagrees with liberalism???

Is it "Taking from the poor and giving to the rich isn't liberalism!"? Well... is taking from 1 and giving to another liberalism? Abso-freakin-lutely. We KNOW that. But taking from poor and giving to the rich isn't? Why? Is 'liberalism' taking from the rich and giving to the poor? If you say that, will you then come out and admit that 'liberalism' is synonomous with wealth redistribution? How MUCH wealth redistribution IS liberalism? How close together much the rich and the poor be to warrant no longer taking from 1 to give to another? They sure has HELL won't put it bluntly during an election year.

And SF, Reagan don't play no Kelo.

And to elaborate on what I mean -

Taking from the poor and giving to the rich - if that is why Kelo isn't liberalism.....well that doesn't mean Kelo isn't liberalism. The law can still be liberal, you just don't like the way it's being used.

Are 'liberals' for equal treatment under the law, anyway?

But at any rate, laws apply equally, that means they reply in reverse. In this case they are taking from poor to give to rich....but 'Kelo' might just as easily equate to taking from rich to give to poor too. Would you like it if they were siezing up walmarts and mansions to build project housing? Then you can't say your against Kelo, you just don't like how they're using the law.....and appparently aren't for equal protection either, to boot....

And I _DO_ wonder if half the people 'outraged!' over Kelo would STILL be 'outraged!' if they were taking from Sam Walton's kid to give to illegal immigrants....they just don't like it in reverse. So it's not really Kelo that's the problem...the application just needs work.

"A liberal is someone who thinks it's okay to take your property if someone else can generate more tax revenue with it"

Well, a liberal MAY be 'someone who thinks it's OK to take stuff away from 1 person and give it to another'. Beyond that, I don't really see much difference. All the qualifiers like 'rich' or 'poor'... the RIGHT is pushing for a system where you can't take from anyone to give to anyone else, so if redistributing is being done (even if it's flowing in the wrong direction) I'm inclined to point leftward. If it were MY call, the government wouldn't even have the power to do that in the first place! No matter which way it was going/who they were doing it too. Who opened pandora's box??

As far as 'nature vs. nurture', yes, I agree with this a good bit. But the 'left', as such, seems to be far more reactionary then the right. Oh....that will piss them off....

But it comes down to a 'natural order'. Since the right HAS it, there are guides in place. Underlying principles that direct the flow of decisions. As I have elaborated above, the left seems very much to be lacking that - Oh, they have VALUES, but they don't seem to have many principles.

Every issue seems to be decided a knee jerk, reactionary, (and anecdotally, mostly emotional) way. Every issue is isolated. They'll tell you where they stand on this or that, but they won't tell you what they beleive in that leads them to thier conclusions. Theres NO order behind there, no system, the decisions are impromptu, and seem to depend a great deal on how the proposal was packaged.

I do not think (as you seem to imply) that the right is more diverse then the left is....the right are just more internecine then the left is. We fight with each other all the time, and I think that's a good thing. It's ideological darwinism, survival of the fittest ideas.

The left, notsomuch that I can see. The fight about politics, how to win elections, but I don't see them fighting with each other on principle. They seem to me to be more united dispite an equal array of disagreement on principle because they just don't talk about it as much. They don't push those basic principles, that underlying 'order' that structures thier policy...

But between the anarchist and the stalinist there is quite a bit of difference. But for some reason, they're happy to hold hands and chant together as they fight a common enemy that oddly enough, happens to actually be between them ideological, closer to either then they are to each other..

I also disagree on the loyalty thing. We are a good bit loyally but we will jump ship eventually. Look at Bush with Miers and the fiscal insanity...conservatives put up with ALOT they didn't like in the name of loyalty, but eventually they had enough...

The left, I don't know...but look how long they apologized for the USSR despite what it was doing (and Cuba, ect ect) because it espoused rhetoric that was ideologically in sink with them, even though the reality was starkly different. You're probably right - the right is more blindly loyal to it's nation, more nationalistic, but 'loyalty' in general, as a principle, I don't think theres a division along party lines. It's a nationalism thing I feel. But if you want to get into the why's of why the left isn't as nationalist, I think it gets more complicated....but you've got alot of internationalists and transnationalists over there, and a distinct lack of traditionalists to boot, and that must effect the overall balance.

And BOTH sides are quite loyal (partisan) when it comes to politics....that's a survival trait. United we stand, divided we fall.

I also disagree that facism is a thing of the right. People who try to stick facism on the right (or left) usually are trying to do it with a 1 dimensional political model, and that is grossly lacking. Personally, I feel even the 'new' 2 dimensional axis is inadequate, I think there should be 3 axis. I can explain if your interested.....

But at any rate, just, as you say, some people try to tie facist albatrosses around the neck of the left using the singular and isolated fact that the nazi's were socialists, the albatross has been conventionally tied to the right on the singular and isolated fact that the nazis were ultranationalists. So if 'well they're socialists' doesn't, in and of itself, make them 'left', 'well they're ultra-nationalist' doesn't, in and of itself, put it on the right either....and that's really all you've got to push them in that direction.

I pose a few simple questions to anyone who says the Nazi's are on the right. Is America farther right then the Nazi's are? Are the Nazi's farther right then the USSR? Is the USSR to the left of America?

The standard argument answers all these questions affirmitave.

Ok, so explain to me how the nazi's were more right then the US and the US is more right then the USSR. You can't do it.

Authoritarian? America least. Is that right or left?

Free markets? America most. Is that right or left?

Democracy? America. Social freedom, freedom of expression? America. You won't find ANY criteria that puts the USSR to the left of America AND the Nazi's the to the right, no matter HOW you define it. Even nationalism - the USSR was more nationalist then we are, or at least as nationalist. The scale doesn't work.

The nazi's were left because 'left' and 'right' are, in political terms, the economic axis and apply to economic practices only. And the Nazi's were socialists.

The Nazis werent Socialists.

But its ok, it is not as if anyone expects facts or truth from you anyway MJ.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Scum:

What is it about Nationale Socalist Arbeiter-Partei that you don't understand? Another Government Schooled idiot.

Bill

Um Yeah, answer the simple question.

By what criteria were the nazi's right of the US and the USSR left?

MJ:

The Socalists sent the Jews to the ovens and the Russians to the GULAG.

Bill

MJ:

I was crass, a bit over worked.

Bill

...but first, let me say you've gone WAY more deep then I intended.

Yeah, I know. It's just something I've wanted to bring up for a while. People use these terms very hazily, so I wanted to at least come up with a working definition that made intuitive sense.

The labels are ultimately arbitrary. You could say I'm trying to identify certain threads in modern political sensibility that associate in clusters. One of my main points is that these clusters are at least partially arbitrary, we seem to be in agreement on that.

But between the anarchist and the stalinist there is quite a bit of difference. But for some reason, they're happy to hold hands and chant together as they fight a common enemy that oddly enough, happens to actually be between them ideological, closer to either then they are to each other..

Yes, and that is pathological. It happens on the right, too. For instance, I don't think that the underlying goals of big business/free market (not necessarily the same thing) and the religious right are truly compatible.

You're probably right - the right is more blindly loyal to it's nation, more nationalistic, but 'loyalty' in general, as a principle, I don't think theres a division along party lines.

My point is not that the left is short on loyalty, but that this loyalty is given more to abstract principles than things like nation and family. I think either one is bad when taken to extremes. In reality, most people do not, as there are few absolutes in practice.

People who try to stick facism on the right (or left) usually are trying to do it with a 1 dimensional political model, and that is grossly lacking.

Well, we ARE talking about a one-dimensional model when we confine our discussion to right and left. Of course it is inadequate.

I think that fascism ultimately belongs on the right, according to my definitions of right and left (I'll get to the left later). I've already said why I find it useful to discuss these words, even though they are terms of oversimplification.

Despite the fact that I put fascism on the right, I don't think there needs to be guilt by association. Clearly, nobody here is a fascist.

The reason I think it belongs on the right is because what makes fascism distinct from other totalitarian ideologies (of which there are many) is that the nature of its social contract is the overriding importance of tribe.

Fascism was socialist in the sense that it believed in the state owning the means of production. However, the reason for this was not universal social justice, but the mandate of the tribe. Communism and Marxist socialism have always been about a universal revolution, followed finally by the end of nations. This is why reasonable people were afraid of them!

These are two forms of statism founded in entirely different principles. Of course, Russians were still quite nationalist. Nobody said they were the unadulterated form of leftism. But I believe that nationalism is ultimately a right-wing tendency, while true globalism is ultimately left-wing. As you said:

...but you've got alot of internationalists and transnationalists over there, and a distinct lack of traditionalists to boot, and that must effect the overall balance.

Moving right along...

Is America farther right then the Nazi's are?

Like I've said, no.

Authoritarian? America least. Is that right or left?

Neither.

Free markets? America most. Is that right or left?

Like I've said, the free market is ONE FORM of rightism. That doesn't mean that an advocate of central planning needs is necessarily left wing. There can be right wing natural orders that disregard the free market...like fascism. As I've said, each form of rightism has its OWN order. There is no universal agreement on the particulars between these factions.

Democracy?...Social freedom, freedom of expression?

You're missing my point if you think that I believe any of these things are intrinsically rightist. I would say that the left GENERALLY puts more value in freedom of expression in the US right now. Whenever someone is lobbying the FCC to take a hand in cable and satellite, who is that? The left also USUALLY puts more value on privacy, to the point of acting like it is a constitutional right.

But it doesn't really matter, because like I've said, neither side can lay exclusive claim to love of personal freedom. Anarchists certainly value those more dearly than the vast majority of people here. Remember, I'm talking about what is intrinsically left and right. Next thing, you'll be laying claim to anarchists because they love freedom, so they must be right wing. It doesn't work that way.

Most people would say that the Nazis were more right wing than the US. I would certainly agree, and I think I've given a definition that explains how this makes sense. But in any case, there is no need for guilt by association. Aren't I generous? ;)

I do not think (as you seem to imply) that the right is more diverse then the left is....the right are just more internecine then the left is.

I don't think the right is more diverse. I see where you're going...it sounds like I'm saying leftism is an anti-philosophy, a disbelief in an objective reality. And in its most absurd and extreme incarnations, this is true.

Fortunately, few can attain that level of confusion. I haven't really gotten into leftism, but like I mentioned, leftists tend to be about nurture over nature. Each leftist faction has its own idea of how to realign society towards its own notion of justice.

They are not all lazy, smirking, solipcistic nihilists, although those tendencies do exist. Just like the right wing, as I describe it, would be more prone to ugly rashes of racism and similar forms of bigotry and provincialism.

By the way, in case it isn't clear, I'm trying to provide definitions of these mindsets that reserves any final judgement. I think there is some value in that, and I hope you see I'm not trying to grind any axes here. Of course I have my opinions, but it is best to define one's terms BEFORE taking a stance.

Some Fella:

Stalin shot a lot of Trotskiites over the Socalism in one Country issue, VL said it couldn't happen, Marx said it couldn't happen.

Stalin said it could, Hitler proved it could, look at the Euro trash they love it. 200 Million dead to prove an arguement.

Bill

Dear Um Yeah, In regards to your post of Dec.7, 4:23. Please reread my post preceding yours. I SAID that Some Fella was being intellectually HONEST, you nitwit! Not DISHONEST! "Damnit" referred to my dilemma on having to admit that. But keep on critizing ME on my reading skills. Perhaps you need to take another I.Q. test?

The Nazis werent Socialists.

The Nazis were socialists. Just like with fascism, you know nothing of the Nazis and their tenets. To PROVE that you're ignorant of the Nazi party's tenets, I will provide the socialist aspects of their 25 point program for everyone to see (no matter, you will continue to pass on your ignorance at a later date and I will educate you some more then too)

7. We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens. (ie....SOCIALISM at its best)

13. We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts). (ie...SOCIALISM at its best)

14. We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries. (ie...SOCIALISM at its best)

15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare. (ie...SOCIALISM at its best)

21. The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young. (uh oh...more SOCIALISM)

Yeah, they weren't socialists.....care to learn a little more about that which you're ignorant of, by choice?

Tiny your argument is that the Nazis were Socialists because they had the word Socialists in their name?

Using that logic the Soviets were Republicans.

>>The Nazis were socialists.

No, but its not like anyone expects truth from you.

Read the rest of it. He proves his point.

A few things here. First of all, I am not worried about allegations of naziism. I wouldn't try to connect Liberman to Mao either. People (like Um Yeah) try to tie the Nazi's to the right but it is too far from the truth to even be wounding. I say this because I know you're not trying to do that - I don't argue the Nazi's were not 'right' out of some defensive attempt to disassociate myself, it's a purely detatched analytical argument which I make because I beleive it to be true.

Whether or not the nazi's were 'right' depends on where you draw the 0 point on your axis...I do wonder where that political compass site does that...However even Um Yeahs own link clearly shows that 'facism' is placed on an entirely different axis then 'left/right', it's up/down, the opposite of facism being not communism but anarchism.

I disagree with that too...anarchy is not a system of governance in my opinion, because it is not viable...it is a transitory state between governments and not a government itself..but that's not really important.

At any rate, whether or not the Nazi's are 'right' or 'left' absolutely, it depends on where you draw your axis...but to reduce the arbitrariness of this discussion I prefer to define 0 as the US and examine whether or not the nazi's were right or left of the US. Most people consider them to be right and the USSR to be left...but this isn't a presumption most people ever evaluate in any sort of depth, they merely accept conventional wisdom which I find to be wholley lacking.

Another misconception is that people tend to use 'nazis' and 'facism' interchangably...facism is not naziism, naziism is facism. That is to say, the nazi's were a type of facist. Facism is neither right nor left in any way shape or form, it belongs on a seperate axis. But the nazi's can be argued to be 'right' or 'left' or whatever else.

If you find an answer to the question I have posed, and in a manner you have, (And you may well be the first), then I happily concede that IF that is your criteria, THEN the nazi's are 'right'. But, your criteria and any other I can imagine someone coming up with, is rather quite obscure. Right/left, as it has been said, is used primarily to discuss economic policies.

But lets look for a moment at the distinctions between the Nazi's and the USSR. One simple distinction is economic policy, no question, the nazi's were not AS left as the USSR. Certainly the USSR was more to the left then nazis, outright communism vs. a degree of socialism.

A big difference that makes facism seperate from communism however, is the xenophobic (or even xenotypic which is a word I may have just made up) beleifs, the 'ultranationalism' or 'ubernationalism'. Certainly, this is a key difference which you have touched upon.

Another key difference, that you cite, I disagree with. The aims of the state. You say that -

"Fascism was socialist in the sense that it believed in the state owning the means of production. However, the reason for this was not universal social justice, but the mandate of the tribe. Communism and Marxist socialism have always been about a universal revolution, followed finally by the end of nations."

I think you need to re-evaluate the aims of the Nazi's. The nazi aim was ALSO the end of nations. They TOO sought world domminance. But beyond world dominance, they also sought to unify the entire world under 1 or a few racial lines as well. This was not just for 'the good of the tribe', it was for that, for certain, but the nazi's had a larger utopian vision. The lesser races needed to be exterminated in order to create the utopian that included, among other things, a more perfect man.

Talk about disobeying the natural order! Nature vs. nurture! The nazi's sought to alter the very nature of man, to change what man itself is, to ostensibly improve upon it by making a more perfect human race as an intrinsic part of a utopian society. Had the nazi's conquered the world, ruled without revolt for a hundred years along with the technological advancements that came in these after-years, and eliminated all the minorities, what it the Nazi super state look like? Have you ever read 'A Brave New World' by Aldrous Huxley? May not be too far from that. The nazi's pursued the new science of genetic engineering in an attempt to improve the very nature of man. I see no 'natural order' to the nazis....they put very little limitations upon themselves. They sought to change EVERYTHING about thier society, it's religion, it's traditions, it's physical and emotional material, it's ideals and values, it's structure and order, it's identity, it's economy, and redefine them all to fit the master utopian plan.

So, that leaves us with nationalism.

Do you really care to make the argument that nationalism is your axis for right/left?? heh...For one, that would mean that leftists are inheritantly inter, anti, or transnationalist...which many of them would not like, and does not at all fit the leftist governments throughout history..It was also end the debate of democrats getting pissed when their patriotism is questioned because by definition they would be less patriotic... On the other side of the spectrum, I simply will not agree with you in arbitrarily labeling supernationalism, xenographism, and racism as a 'right' trait. I beleive that is completely wrong. It's a rather awkward line too....we can discuss that if you disagree with me.

Going back to the local vs. the global aims...what do you make of imperialism? Was Rome left? Are empires left? They are global in aim....No, world dominance of ideology or world dominance of reign is something that can be found to be sought by various members of practically every ideology/philosophy/theology/politic ever concieved.

What would you call neocons???? Classical liberalism, freedom, individualism, free market capitalism - with global aims.

At any rate - the common conception, applied without much thought behind it usually, is what I rigorously dispute. And you seem to have the same idea, name that is : Left to right - USSR -> US -> Nazi Germany.

Now, one can easily draw all manner of conclusions, like the Nazi being far right....but with the USSR being farther right and the US left or something equally counterintuitive that still shatters that old consensus mold. This can be done because things can be labeled arbitrarily. But to keep the 3 in proper relation to one another, with the US in the middle so as not to change the result of the basic popular conception, USSR -> US -> NAZI, what we find is that there is not criteria we can use to accomplish that, so it must be wrong.

Even if you suggest 'globalism' as the left/right axis which will thoroughly confuse everyone who generally accepts it to be economic in nature:

The Nazi's had more global aim then America, ESPECIALLY 'liberal' democrat America, which is less global these days then conservative republican America. And too, the USSR had more global aims then either American party. So, to put the Nazi's as "right" on such a scale you must make America far right, Nazi's moderate right. Left to right, USSR -> NAZI -> US. It still doesn't quite work.

If you say xenophobia or racism which I heavily disagree with even trying to plot politically, at least, on a left/right sliding line and not as a component of certain specific ideologies...Well, it depends much now on the time period....but in 1945 I STILL think you end up with the US on the end as the extreme outlier of the 3, not in the middle, which is were popular conception places it. Popular conception is, in my conclusion, obviously wrong.

>>Read the rest of it. He proves his point.

I read it, he didnt have a point let alone prove one.

"No you stupid UY-tutored fuck. THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE OF EMINENT DOMAIN. The ruling last June, not ED in general. How fucking stupid can you be? D'uh...ED is fully Constitutional. ED for the reason of THIS FUCKING CASE last June is not."

So you disagree with the ruling and it aoutmatically goes in the " un-constitutional & liberal" column.

As I stated earlier; For anyone to attempt the "it's the Liberals" on ED, is plain ignorance.

"Anyone who relies on SS to be there for them 40 years from now would probably be best off as a ward of the state anyway. Lest they hurt themselves....take too much medication and post incoherant rantings on conservative weblogs under the name Russ or something..."

This is the best you can do for a response to your Red/Blue state GDP per capita ignorance?

So....I suggest you look something up, and you still can't figgure out what year I'm talking about so you lash out and call me ignorant.

Suuuure....

Is 'ignorance' Pee Wee Herman's word of the day today or what?

Look up what? Is there a connection between ED and the GDP per capita of red and blue states? Is there a formula for sharing the GDP of a state amongst the citizens? Make a connection to this article.

It makes a clear connection to what I can only assume to be the meaning of your post, which was semi-coherant and unexplained.

Apparently you don't even understand what you said, since you were the one who brought it up and now question it's relevance.

>>> Apparently you don't even understand what you said, since you were the one who brought it up and now question it's relevance.

And this is something new?

Whether or not the nazi's were 'right' depends on where you draw the 0 point on your axis...

That really depends. What I'm trying to do here is NOT place right and left within a spectrum of values. That would be impossible considering the great diversity on each side. I'm trying to qualitatively differentiate these two meta-philosophies, not quantitatively.

anarchy is not a system of governance in my opinion, because it is not viable

Anarchy is a social situation and not a form of government, true...however, anarchISM is a political philosophy just like the rest of these we're discussing.

The nazi aim was ALSO the end of nations. They TOO sought world domminance. But beyond world dominance, they also sought to unify the entire world under 1 or a few racial lines as well.

To be honest, I am not super-knowledgable about Nazi philosophy (imagine that). My impression was not that they explicitly sought to eliminate all other races, but to live separately from them. Of course, they had a soft spot in their hearts for Jews. At least, that was my impression. Feel free to educate me on this.

Another misconception is that people tend to use 'nazis' and 'facism' interchangably...facism is not naziism, naziism is facism. That is to say, the nazi's were a type of facist.

Yes, that's true. I was aware of that, and just mixing the terms for convenience. I believe that for the purposes of what I've already said, either one will do. Fascism is usually the more appropriate word since Naziism refers to a single instance.

Talk about disobeying the natural order!

Depends which natural order. I believe that the Nazis felt that race war WAS the natural order. If you read up on the racist politics of today, they are all anticipating an almost destined "RAHOWA" aka Racial Holy War. Yes, they are crazy, but they think we're the crazy ones who have strayed from our tribe.

According to white racialists, it was Jewish values that introduced ideas like "equality" and "women's rights" and Communism etc. These ideas are all intended, according to them, to abstract us from our natural roots. Keep in mind that even today many of these people are opposed to BOTH Communism and capitalism (not unlike radical Islam). In their minds, both of these are the product of Jewish thought (again, not unlike radical Islam). Suffice to say, I also categorize radical Islam as right-wing.

This is what I was getting at before about the right-left nature of the free market. The free market is the natural order for some rightists, and an abomination for others. Admittedly, I can't think of any leftists that are in favor of the free market, but that is another story. My point: the free market doesn't exactly line up as a right-wing value. Rather, it only works that way for SOME rightists.

Do you really care to make the argument that nationalism is your axis for right/left??

It is not THE axis, but I would definitely say that the right wing has a far greater tendency towards nationalism, and the left wing has far greater tendencies towards universal justice.

what do you make of imperialism?

That's an excellent question. The neo-cons represent a real conundrum here. Just goes to show the limits of a unidimensional system. I would say the neocons split into two camps. There are idealists like Fukuyama, and I'd say he's actually on the left. These are true believers in the End of History and the inevitable spread of democracy. Typically naive, idealistic and motivated by universal justice.

But when you get to the more pragmatic architects like Perle and Feith, what you have is more imperialistic. Imperialism is still nationalistic because you're talking about an exploitive situation where the empire prospers. This certainly has a more right wing quality.

Just because Nazis had a global aim doesn't mean they had a universal aim (i.e. a plan for universal justice). They certainly had goals that involved the entire Earth, but these goals were not about spreading their utopia to anyone but themselves.

I have to get back to work, so I'm going to cut this short. Just to clarify, I'm drawing my own lines here in a way that I hope is descriptive of how certain sensibilities associate with each other. As such, there are plenty of stray philosophies that straddle the lines, plenty of 'violations' by individual groups that otherwise cluster nicely, etc.

Also, I'll summarize what I've described as right wing traits just to make absolutely clear and compact. They are:

- A belief is a nigh-inexorable natural order that provides moral law. It is simple and elegant, and claims comprehensiveness.

- An affection for the particular and concrete.

- Nature vs. Nurture: Nurture wins

Everything else, like nationalism and racism, are derived from these. They are not inevitable, but instead manifestations of these underlyng principles. In other words, although I think racism as a philosophy falls under the right wing, a right winger doesn't have to be racist at all.

I'll get to the left after work today, but I've already previewed a lot of my thoughts there, so there shouldn't be any big surprises.

No, but its not like anyone expects truth from you.

So, you're saying you cannot read english? I clearly posted the socialist tenets of the Nazi party. And your megalomaniac response is that the facts are incorrect because you said so? Once again, for everyone to see......UY's ignorance and pathetic childishness. BTW, my TRUTH came form your favorite Wikipedia site.

Read the rest of it. He proves his point.

Of course I proved my point. The pathetic child will not read that because THEN the megalomaniac would be WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

I read it, he didnt have a point let alone prove one.

No, you're right, I didn't prove my point.....Wikipedia did it for me. You were and are wrong, as usual, and denying it only makes you look more ignorant than you already are. Be better for you to just disappear from this thread until the next time you try to pin Nazis as not socialists. But don't worry, I'll be there to prove you wrong with Wikipedia again.

So you disagree with the ruling and it aoutmatically goes in the " un-constitutional & liberal" column.

Nice straw-man. Not only did I and nearly every American disagree with that particular ruling, but so did the conservative judges on the case.

As I stated earlier; For anyone to attempt the "it's the Liberals" on ED, is plain ignorance.

No, you stupid fuck. Stop with teh straw man. It's liberals IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE BACK IN JUNE that brought about this ONE FUCKING CASE in Florida. THIS ONE CASE, not ED in general. How fucking thick is your skull?

One of the things that is missing here, in this arguement, is how the socalists, liberals, use language.

Stalin and the Russian Commies put the right wing label on Fascism, from their view point it was correct as was their labeling Trotskii as a left deviationist.

Il Duce, the founder of Fascism used to call the Italian Communists, My Children, he broke with the Italian Socalist movement over WW1. He used to write Lenin and give him advice during the revolution.

Hitler was a member of the Volkes Bund in Austria before WW1, a Socalist Party, very antisemitic, before he migrated to Germany.

What you are talking about is the right and the left in the communist movement.

Bill

Sarge never gets angrier than when he is confronted with facts.

Here's a link that reflects certain ideas I've been talking about in relation to Nazism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

By no means do I consider wikipedia to be an authoritative resource...it's not much better than linking to a blog. However, it's worth pointing out as an example of how I'm defining these categories. If you read that article in light of my definition of rightism, you will see why I consider Nazism and fascism to be much further to the right than the US.

I think Stalinism is in the same neighborhood of badness as Nazism, and Marxism is likewise akin to fascism. And both pairs are very similar in many ways. However, at least according to my definition, these philosophies, similar as they are, fall on opposite sides of the right-left border. Not only that, but they are both at the extremes of the right and left, respectively. Seemingly paradoxical, but I think I've shown how this could be true.

Next up...what's left to say of the left.

Before I get into the left, I want to mention this:

Every issue seems to be decided a knee jerk, reactionary

MJ, when you are describing the left as "reactionary", it sounds like you are confusing the word with "reactive". "Reactionary" has a very limited meaning that is purely political. It literally means conservative, traditionalist and anti-progressive. It's not used in any other sense.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=reactionary

Not trying to be a language-whore, just letting you know.

"What I'm trying to do here is NOT place right and left within a spectrum of values. That would be impossible considering the great diversity on each side. I'm trying to qualitatively differentiate these two meta-philosophies, not quantitatively."

Uhh...SF, that's just a fancy way of saying your trying to establish a 0 point on the axis. To identify the center. Then, instead of giving people point spreads, you're operating on a simple 'pass or fail' basis (right or left) but you're still quantifying them.

Besides, I find that so arbitrary as to be completely meaningless. What meaning can we draw from such conclusions? I find it more usefull to arbitrarily use the US as the 0 point and say that the USSR is 'left of the US'..that tells us something. But to merely say that 'the USSR is left' doesn't tell us anything if you leave open the possibility that the US is further left still. It could mean almost anything, everything, nothing, unless it is quantified.

"anarchISM is a political philosophy just like the rest of these we're discussing."

Except anarchism isn't, in my opinion, viable. They don't promote anything, they want to tear something down but have nothing to fill it with, it's purely destructive...It's a lack of a thing, a desire to get rid of whatever form of governance is ruling but with no viable concept of what to replace it with. A hole is not a posistive 'non-thing' it's merely the the negative lack of any things...There is not a substantial thing of 'darkness', merely an absense of light...I find this hard to explain...but I think you can't quantify or qualify a vacuum.

"My impression was not that they explicitly sought to eliminate all other races, but to live separately from them."

No, the master plan was to not JUST eliminate (eventually, entirely) the lesser races, but elimate too the lesser elements of the master race. It doesn't even just break down on racial lines, the 'final solution' was the coalescence of the beleif in eugenics with a desire to selectively breed and genetically engineer a superhuman race of men. Being German wasn't truly even enough in and of itself, but certainly closer in thier minds then being Jewish...but in the endgame, they planned to kill them all. Well...not ALL, I'll get to that...some xenos they liked.

Facism and nazi idealogy is not extraordinarily prevalent in the US today, it's really not. It's not at all surprising most people would not be familiar with it, but when it's completely alien to someone, well, it's a whole ideaology...it's alot to swallow. Alot to read. ALOT. But I would suggest, if you seek to understand the Nazi's, that you start with the complete works of Friedrich Nietzsche. Thats a good few-thousand page start.

"I believe that the Nazis felt that race war WAS the natural order."

I find that to be horribly unwieldy and I disagree. The race was not enough, it was the clay but still had to be molded. Hitler did often wonder if he chose the wrong clay. All that was 'german' was not what Hitler wanted, he wanted to change what it was to be German, create a new thing. At his end he cursed the German people for not be deserving enough and strong enough to recieve his vision and carry forth the plan. The germans, those certainly racially identified, had no ethic issues with the Italians or the Japanese or the Arabs, Hitler had a great deal of respect for Arab peoples, and part of his origin of the 'aryan race' myth held that the aryans were originally an arab people. Many white supremicists beleive that while whites are better then blacks, asians are better then whites. Hitler wondered if the Arab cultures might not have been better clay, thought Islam was far more suited then Christianity to promoting his master plan.

How is a race a natural order anyway? It really seems a stretch to me. Yes, race and ethnicity was a large part of what made the nazi's specifically nazi as opposed to say, socialists or some such, but I think the real motives lay not in race, just the methodology lies there.

"Just because Nazis had a global aim doesn't mean they had a universal aim (i.e. a plan for universal justice)."

You are corerct, just because does not mean, BUT, they DID have a plan for universal morality. I don't know if you'd use the word 'justice', I'm sure they thought it was just...But SURELY you're not going to tell me that the difference between left and right is that left is just:P

"but these goals were not about spreading their utopia to anyone but themselves."

Not so. Incorrect. As I have mentioned they did hold other races up as equal to the German race, just a select few, however. Perhaps that would have changed as time went by but, more importantly... They did in fact envision a utopia. You say they didn't want to 'spread justice to anyone but themselves', ok, but they didn't want to world to be made out of any more then 1 type of person. Everyone would be 'themselves'. They did want to spread utopia to all people within the entire world. 1 manner of this is eliminating racial differences....AND, GET THIS, most leftists would flip....(you should read A Brave New World by the way) eliminating inequality. Eliminating physcial and racial disadvantage. No one would be born phsyically weaker then others, mentally weaker then others, or ethnically inferior, all people would be born equal and perfect.

They sought to achieve this with darwinian natural selection, selective breeding, genetics. To weed out and eliminate the evils of the human genes, to isolate and remove the inferior elements and leave only the refined, perfect man. And so they killed all the jews.....they saw them as a source of imperfection.

But Nazi's were all about euthanasia, and they called it thusly as well. If you were born handicapped, you were killed. Being German doesn't matter.

You don't see a 'social justice' to that? Read Mein Kampf, it's in there.

Now this is getting long...to continue in another post... I think I'm finished with the Nazi related replies.

Ahh...I'm kind of out of steam tonight. But I think you are forcing too much into 'left and right' terms. I don't see why you seem to feel facism need fit in terms of left and right.

You say you don't want to 'quantify' this, and I think the reason is because when you try to, you run into to many problems. You touch on this. I think this is because it can't be done, at all, because it does not fit. When you try to measure you find it does not belong in these terms, it can only be forced vaguely...

So instead what you seem to do is take non-causal, possibly coincidental anecdotes to define 'right' and 'left'. You're essentially defining them by concensus, yet, since the placement is entirely arbitary to begin with I don't see how you can determine which form concensus and which are anamolies.

You're seeing these 'violatins' and tossing them out....I don't think that's right. I think these 'violations' arise because you're too broad and ambitious in your range. You're encompassing things that don't truly belong and trying to make them squeeze in. You're drawing coincidental observations about what has been, but not really offering a thesis as to why it is, an explanation, a mechanism, that might be able to be dissected to make these distinctions.

You also say racism falls under the right wing, I disagree categorically. I can provide mountains of evidence of left-leaning racism but you can just as easily call those anomolies and ignore them....

And I can provide ample evidence of right-leaning aims toward universal justice....you don't seem to recognize those motives...but you may just call them leftist!

You also keep bringing up 'universal justice', you'll have to explain that more because I do not understand this reference and find it to be a bit...degrading.

You also seem...well...it's late..but you need some Nietzche...

"- A belief is a nigh-inexorable natural order that provides moral law. It is simple and elegant, and claims comprehensiveness."

The facists chose thier morality fairly arbitrarily, it was designed to produce a desirable outcome, the utopian social model, not because it was seen as moral or ordered. Literally I mean that. Read it twice please and slowly because I think that is a key statement.

Finally....'reactionary'. It is defined as "An opponent of progress or liberalism; an extreme conservative. "

Wow! Hah! I find that interesting. Little did I know these guys had thier own cutdown in the dictionary for us....yeesh..

Reactive, then, is what I meant....BUT, now that I have learned that, that pisses me off a good bit.

Because I could have well have meant that. Just like this:

"Characterized by reaction, especially opposition to progress or liberalism; extremely conservative."

Only without the political qualification. I did not know that about the word though...I just hear lefties use it alot and I surmised it's meaning from the context over the years I suppose...hence why I knew using 'thier' word that they use all the time would 'piss them off' since I hear the word mostly or all from them....

In terms of today, I find the 'liberal' party to be more statist, the 'conservative' party to be more reformist. That word seems to me to be a echo of former times that no longer holds to be true...if it ever was. Websters doesn't define what he means by 'conservative' and 'liberal' so I find the word to be loaded and deceptive.

On a side note:

You should read "A Brave New World" by Aldrous Huxley and then read my favorite novel, "Farenheit 415" by Ray Bradbury. And then compare the two. I bet you would like that. I do at least.

The two books are different and both good in their own right...But, at times I find it fun to think of them as the exact same book, the same world...just written/seen from different perspectives.

The future government described in both books is very similar, essentially the same. The author's view, or the view you are given by the characters is very different however. I think it tells you quite a bit about the views of the authors to see how the 2 saw a similar thing very differently. Huxley has a more ambivilant view toward the utopia he wrote about, he saw both good and bad in it, but in the end he seemed to conclude that it was more good because most people viewed it favorably even if it wasn't idealistic or moral or real. Yet oddly, I would pin Huxley as the liberal here.

Bradbury condemned the whole damn structure. The less idealistic ends up being more idealistic...the one who isn't trying to create unreal idealistic utopias is the one who in the end, is will to throw it all away on the principle of the matter.

I've been arguing this whole time that I disagree with what you are saying (and I do disagree with some of it). Here's what I would say.

Nature vs. Nurture - a good way to the difference between modern US conservatives and modern US liberals, generally speaking.

Left vs. right - purely economical terms, communism and free market laisez-faire capitalism

facism and libertarianism - opposits on a seperate scale of authoritarianism, or authority and scale of government

idealism and pragmatism - not politically motivated

racism - not politically motivated.

Perhaps tommorow, as I feel it may lend some insight into my views, I'll say a bit on what I think racism actually is.

Yeah, I can't muster a post on leftism tonight. It will have to wait. For now, I'll 'jot' off some 'quick' responses.

You're essentially defining them by concensus, yet, since the placement is entirely arbitary to begin with I don't see how you can determine which form concensus and which are anamolies.

You'll excuse me for saying, but I don't think you quite understand what I'm trying to do. I'll try to be more clear. These definitions are, to an extent, arbitrary. There are plenty of philosophies that don't easily fall into either camp, and I think this way of thinking can be a trap.

The point of discussing it, however, is that I think that among the lineages of modern political philophies, there are two major trunks. The underlying concepts of these two wings has an effect on how people think, whether we want them to or not. Or so I suppose. In any case, they form a kind of dialog, and most political issues are posed with this historical dialog in mind.

Uhh...SF, that's just a fancy way of saying your trying to establish a 0 point on the axis. To identify the center.

When I say I'm trying to be qualitative and quantitative, that's NOT a way of talking about how I set the zero point. What I'm trying to say is you can't look at a given group's stances along a set of ratings and place them on a scale from left to right e.g. liberty, free market, etc.

What I'm saying is that these are distinct philosophies, and you have to look deeper than specific policies to what truly motivates them. That's why I say you can't use a question of statism or support for free market to place a party on the scale.

There are right and left groups that run the gamut on both of these. And yet, they are still deeply rooted in certain shared concepts. That doesn't mean that these roots should be more significant than policy issues.

Essentially, I don't think there is a true center. Instead, you can be associated with the right-wing, the left-wing, or a departure from either. Like I said, I don't think of it so much as a scale from R to L so much as groupings of mindsets, each group sharing historical roots and certain underlying elements of their respective worldviews.

Except anarchism isn't, in my opinion, viable. They don't promote anything, they want to tear something down but have nothing to fill it with, it's purely destructive...It's a lack of a thing, a desire to get rid of whatever form of governance is ruling but with no viable concept of what to replace it with.

Because I'm lazy, I'm going to, once again, point you towards wikipedia. Here's the page, and a quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

Anarchism refers to various political philosophies and social movements that advocate the elimination of the state, i.e. involuntary government. In place of centralized political structures and exploitative economic institutions, these movements advocate social relations based upon voluntary association of autonomous individuals and self-governance.

Serious anarchism does not advocate wild lawlessness or finger-painting communes. Rather, it advocates the replacement of an involuntary social contract with a voluntary one. The nature of this new contract is hotly debated. What most sets anarchism apart from libertarianism its much lower regard for property rights. Whether or not you think it's 'viable', it seems more workable to me than, say, fascism or communism. Certainly far less objectionable. And I get the impression that you might not be familiar with it.

Well, that's enough for now. I'm trying to learn the Spring framework and this is really cutting into that time. If you don't mind me saying, you don't seem to see the point in this kind of analysis, so if it's not engaging anyone, I'll let it drop.

One more thing: I haven't read a whole lot of Nietzsche, although t