Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
292,964
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: + − + + + + + + + + + + + − *An alternative definition which some political scientists say better describes current political differences states that those on the 'left' tend to favor bigger government, egalitarianism, and collectivism while those on the 'right' favored smaller government, free markets, and individualism.<ref>Ed Poor's high-school teacher</ref>+ + + + + + + − :'''egalitarianism, and collectivism'''. This is unacceptable. to equate "egalitarianism" to "collectivism" is ludicrous. − *Yet another definition describes current political differences by saying that the 'left' tends to favor personal freedoms, while the 'right' tends to favor economic freedoms.<ref>Somebody named Nolan?</ref> − :'''Bogus arguement.''' economic freedom is personal freedom. Line 23:
Line 37: + + + + + + +
Talk:Political spectrum/definitions (view source)
Revision as of 01:44, April 12, 2007
, 01:44, April 12, 2007→Criticisms of a one-dimensional view: yes, that's true
==Definitions==
==Definitions==
The left-right political spectrum is a way of classifying some political positions as "leftist" or "rightist". Obviously, it is not intended to classify every possible political belief as one or the other, and there is controversy about which criterion should used for the classification. Some of the main theories used to classify positions along the left-right spectrum are the following:
*Traditionally political scientists have defined the left-right '''political spectrum''' by saying that politics on the 'right' usually supports the traditional institutions and values of a society, while politics on the 'left' usually favors challenging traditional institutions and values.<ref>H. Winter and T. Bellows (1997), Conflict and Compromise: An Introduction to Political Science, 8th ed., Ch. 3. Longman, Inc.</ref>,<ref>S. Tansey (2000), Politics: the Basics, 2nd ed., Ch. 4. Routledge, Inc.</ref>,<ref>Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, def. 2.8 of 'right' and def. 2.3 of 'left'</ref>
*Traditionally political scientists have defined the left-right '''political spectrum''' by saying that politics on the 'right' usually supports the traditional institutions and values of a society, while politics on the 'left' usually favors challenging traditional institutions and values.<ref>H. Winter and T. Bellows (1997), Conflict and Compromise: An Introduction to Political Science, 8th ed., Ch. 3. Longman, Inc.</ref>,<ref>S. Tansey (2000), Politics: the Basics, 2nd ed., Ch. 4. Routledge, Inc.</ref>,<ref>Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, def. 2.8 of 'right' and def. 2.3 of 'left'</ref>
:'''Stop right here'''. Is al-Qeade left or right under this definition?
*An alternative definition which some political scientists say better describes current political differences states that those on the 'left' tend to favor bigger government, egalitarianism, and collectivism while those on the 'right' favored smaller government, free markets, and individualism.<ref>Ed Poor's high-school teacher</ref>
*Yet another definition describes current political differences by saying that the 'left' tends to favor personal freedoms, while the 'right' tends to favor economic freedoms.<ref>Somebody named Nolan?</ref>
REBUTTING objections by RobS:
:About Def. 1: '''Stop right here'''. Is al-Qeade left or right under this definition?
::I would say neither. There is no reason to suppose every political movement falls on the left/right spectrum. --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 07:10, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Good answer. When proven that this theory is not doctrinal then, will you join us is stating it is only a theory?
:About Def. 2: '''egalitarianism, and collectivism'''. This is unacceptable. to equate "egalitarianism" to "collectivism" is ludicrous.
::Nothing in Def. 2 states or implies that egalitarianism is the same thing as collectivism. If they were the same, one word would suffice.--[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 07:16, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Then you can't use the both words in this regard.
:About Def. 3: '''Bogus arguement.''' economic freedom is personal freedom.
::Sorry, your objection is bogus. Many people say economic freedom helps promote personal freedom, and vice versa. But they are not the same thing. --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 07:16, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Let's adopt your view for a moment; since economic freedom and personal freedom are not intertwined, I assume you have no objection to slavery then, since enjoying the economic freedom of a paycheck isn't necessary as long as you are still afforded the personal freedom to enjoy a hot meal once in awhile or using the bathroom.
<references/>
<references/>
For example, [[libertarian]]s say that their point of view - advocating personal freedom in all its forms, as long as it does not conflict with the freedom of others, is '''not''' a left-wing or right-wing position. Advocating freedom sometimes leads them to take positions that are usually considered [[rightist | right-wing]] (for example, defending a worker's right not to join a labor union) but at other times leads them to take positions that are usually considered [[leftist | left-wing]] (for example, defending gay rights).
For example, [[libertarian]]s say that their point of view - advocating personal freedom in all its forms, as long as it does not conflict with the freedom of others, is '''not''' a left-wing or right-wing position. Advocating freedom sometimes leads them to take positions that are usually considered [[rightist | right-wing]] (for example, defending a worker's right not to join a labor union) but at other times leads them to take positions that are usually considered [[leftist | left-wing]] (for example, defending gay rights).
--[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 08:03, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
--[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 08:03, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
:This is bogus double-talk; [[Liberal#Original meaning: "Classical liberalism"]] states right here,
::''Liberal in its secular meaning, describes someone who favors personal freedom in all its forms[1], as long as it does not conflict with the freedom of others''
:You cannot have it both ways. A Liberal and a Libertarian are not the same thing, and you cannot use the same definition for different things on two different pages. But thanks for trying to ameliorate dissenters by "throwing 'em bone" anyways. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:47, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
The 'political spectrum' is obviously worthless. The only meaningful divisions are between '''us''' (whoa re obviosuly correct about EVERYTHING) and '''them''' (who are EVIL INCARNATE and want to see us all DESTROYED). --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 21:41, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:In general, yes, that is how it is taught in American public schools, and repeated in American mainstream media. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:44, 11 April 2007 (EDT)