Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

The way things never were - The way things will never be

Seems like a fairly accurate description for the Left/Right divide.

Each has an imagined Golden Age it looks to impose using the expanding arm of centralized government.

The right believes in a Golden Age somewhere in the past that existed before it was trashed by the left.

The left believes a Golden Age is before us, if only those darn right wingers would get the hell outta the way.

What's interesting to me is the intersection that allows them to sing the same tune, but with different lyrics. Both want utopia and that's why they are able to, despite bitter disagreement, coalesce on the same broad path while mud slinging over peripheral issues.

It seems more about the value - or lack of value - each side places upon social stability.
The right prefers it to be a non-issue, while the left likes nothing more than to stir everything up constantly.


I don't agree. With regards to social standards it might be more accurate to say the left wants innovation through the dissolution of "old" standards.

In my mind, it makes little sense to call something conservative when it's goal is conserving a fantasy.

Instead I should think it'd be about conserving a foundational set of values and the institutions which have been proven to actualize them. This keeps conservatism realistic and adaptive. Free entirely from Utopian delusions.

To the left, nothing is ever good enough, and must always be 'improved'. Hence the never-ending zeal for 'change'.
To the right, usually older people who have something to compare things with, holding onto things that they remember as having worked is more important than impulsively discarding them in favour of untried 'change' for the sake of it.

I don't know how things are up der in Canadia-eh? But here in Americs, the psuedo-conservative old guys are heavily emotionally invested in a recollection of their past that is a bit too rosy to be accurate.

Not that I disagree with you in sentiment or in essence. I'm really looking at the right-pseudo conservatism that manifests itself, actually and prominently as opposed to the Amerika.org-almost-Burkean conservatism.

I agree that a lot of modern conservatism is either just free-market leftism or romanticizing the past, but in the end conservatism is about the preservation of values (and value). Ultimately, this dichotomy does not really exist because Leftism is not really about anything. It is just against.

The modern world should not be rejected because that is impossible. The modern spirit on the other hand can certainly be. Excess objectivism and focus on the individual at the expense of organic society and the necessary suppression of some individualism.

So it would follow that our world is the result of our spirits. If the modern world is soulless and blighted that should inform us about the spirits of those who shape and impact it. When spirits are broken by modern life, a cycle has begun.

...Leftism is not really about anything. It is just against.

This was the moment Trystero became immortal. This sentence will long outlive him.
That's one to remember.

Ultimately, this dichotomy does not really exist because Leftism is not really about anything. It is just against.

I think people on the left are motivated by positive concerns. Justice and equality.

People on the right are motivated by hierarchy (inequality) and purity.

Janathan Heidt did some interesting research on this.

Justice doesn't seem to equate to victimizing people for not thinking one's own adopted thoughts.
Equality doesn't seem to equate with thoroughly trashing people who don't necessarily agree.
How are these qualities positive?

Justice doesn't seem to equate to victimizing people for not thinking one's own adopted thoughts.
Equality doesn't seem to equate with thoroughly trashing people who don't necessarily agree.
How are these qualities positive?

I meant positive in terms of a substantive thesis. Something really there as opposed to merely an absence of something. I didn't mean morally.

Well, if results - so far - are anything to go by, those high-sounding qualities lose some of their shine, no?


Well, if results - so far - are anything to go by, those high-sounding qualities lose some of their shine, no?

I don't have an issue with 'justice' as much as pluralism (or cultural equality). There is a distinct tendency among intellectuals, politicians, and anyone with an establishment reputation to not be seen as advancing a conception of the good (when in fact by not doing this you are tacitly doing this - your conception of the good is extreme pluralism).

I think 'justice' is important, and in many ways our legal system is more just than in the past, as far as non-arbitrary.

I agree that a lot of modern conservatism is either just free-market leftism or romanticizing the past, but in the end conservatism is about the preservation of values (and value).

To say one is on the right in a pure sense would prevent conservatism from making sure we hold onto the best stuff. For example is it possible that there is value in liberal institutions promoting liberty and therefore are worth conserving? Just a thought.

Ultimately, this dichotomy does not really exist because Leftism is not really about anything. It is just against.

This is nonsense.