Loss Aversion, Fear and Right Wing Political Views

[Greyblades]

Right-wing politics tend to emphasise the betterment of one-self at the expense of others through guise of individualism, usually leading to a hierarchical system of those on top at various degrees over those at the bottom. It tends to use variables as bloodlines, wealth, ethnic-tensions, map boundaries, religion/ideology. This allows ambition and disparity to flourish.

Alternate image:

[rory_20_uk]

Hence why at the very least Left / Right needs to have a different axis of individualistic / state run.


Another one -

Communism is a bastardisation of Left Wing views where the leaders have been put there by the populace and so to go against the leaders is against the people themselves so no punishment is too severe - often making the powers exercised by Absolute Monarchs seem weak. Absolute hierarchies often initially based on violence but followed by nepotism.

[Beskar]

@Greyblades

Your picture is not loading for me, but I think your signature is perfect, it sums up exactly why people might be interested in right wing politics. I would have thanked it if it were your reply.

There is a definite feel good factor in the feeling of superiority. This explains the popularity of media such as the daily mail, the feeling as you the reader at better than those scumbags on the cover, you are part of the better part of British society even though you are not the ones at the top of it, it is better than being the rest.

[rory_20_uk]

One's happiness is most influenced not by where one is in the scale on a Global level - but where one is in relation to one's peers / friends. One will be happier having the only indoor toilet compared to having all one's friends are billionaires merely than multi-millionaires.

[Greyblades]

Your picture is not loading for me, but I think your signature is perfect, it sums up exactly why people might be interested in right wing politics. I would have thanked it if it were your reply.

Look again, I was questioning your claim that the right wing emphasizes betterment of one at the expense of another.

Communism is a bastardisation of Left Wing views where the leaders have been put there by the populace and so to go against the leaders is against the people themselves so no punishment is too severe

This also applies to fascism.

[Beskar]

Hence why at the very least Left / Right needs to have a different axis of individualistic / state run.

I agree, my example is rather broad but seems to encompass the positions more succinctly.

Communism is a bastardisation of Left Wing views where the leaders have been put there by the populace and so to go against the leaders is against the people themselves so no punishment is too severe - often making the powers exercised by Absolute Monarchs seem weak. Absolute hierarchies often initially based on violence but followed by nepotism.

For sake of clarity, I am assuming you are meaning USSR, China, etc and not exactly what was proposed by Marx.

Communism realised and paraded are a parody of the ideals they espouse, forming what is a totalitarian/fascism state. It is a bastardisation of left-wing ideals to create an extreme-right wing system. It shares a kinship to Nazi Germany more than it does to modern social democracies like Norway.

Greyblades hit the nail on the head with this about his reply showing kinship with fascism.

[Beskar]

Look again, I was questioning your claim that the right wing emphasizes betterment of one at the expense of another.

Had to copy and paste source to see it.

It all depends on how nefarious and malice you apply to the statement.

I give you an example: you want to pay less taxes, to do this, you advocate cutting services such as state welfare, which include things like child tax credits, which are aimed at enabling poorer parents to feed their children better. You have now successfully bettered yourself but caused greater disparity as your betterment was due to these parents being able to provide with less. Whilst you could argue that the left do the same, by suggesting your taxes such help needier elements, it does this to cause greater parity, not disparity.

[Greyblades]

I need more than your somewhat biased word to believe your claim that "Right-wing politics tend to emphasise the betterment of one-self at the expense of others through guise of individualism," isn't just reciting the party line.

What I'm saying is your labour is showing.

[Beskar]

I need more than your somewhat biased word to believe your claim that "Right-wing politics tend to emphasise the betterment of one-self at the expense of others through guise of individualism," isn't just reciting the party line.

What I'm saying is your labour is showing.

I am actually more of a Libdem, I haven't voted Labour their than a local in 2007 as I knew the candidate of the ward, so I voted the person. I was never really a fan of the New Labour agenda. I admit, Corbyn is an interesting fellow which I am watching, because it is funny to see the Media attack the left winger and it is having the Farage effect of making him more popular.

It is a point of view as I said, it is not entirely overt as the statement may imply but they generally have that effect, intended or not.

[Greyblades]

Lib-dem, labour, either way you have shown some bias towards the left wing. While it must be noted that you are better than most at not letting political alignment colour your thinking I am still skeptical that you can evaluate the right wing without being biased. Thus: citation needed.

I'm not sure what Corbyn has to do with this, though I will agree he is indeed interesting and should make a good leader of the opposition but I still do not want the man in the driver's seat.

[Beskar]

Lib-dem, labour, either way you have shown some bias towards the left wing. While it must be noted that you are better than most at not letting political alignment colour your thinking I am still skeptical that you can evaluate the right wing without being biased. Thus: citation needed.

Scepticism is healthy.

What you can do is understand the reasoning/viewpoint as to why it is like that. You can see my example earlier and go 'okay, he is following that line of reasoning' then you can evaluate it within your own mind.

[Fisherking]

Right-wing politics tend to emphasise the betterment of one-self at the expense of others through guise of individualism, usually leading to a hierarchical system of those on top at various degrees over those at the bottom. It tends to use variables as bloodlines, wealth, ethnic-tensions, map boundaries, religion/ideology. This allows ambition and disparity to flourish.

Left-wing politics tend to emphasise the betterment of one-self in cooperation with others, the goal to create an open and fair society. This would be to treat your fellow human as equals and tend to promote a shared unity. This limits ambition and forces a parity.

Central position is an attempt to straddle these two views, promoting greater betterment, but preventing the extremes from occurring by limiting the power and excesses of those on top whilst promoting independence of those at the bottom. This usually is slow to change and react, but allows ambition limited by keeping an acceptable parity.

Fascism in History was classified as a '3rd way' but it is a bastardisation of extreme right wing views. Totalitarian systems don't fit the scale well as they demonstrate a fixation and extreme on right wing politics by having an elite far above everyone else whilst aiming to promote a symbolic unity such as nationalism to entrench and support the elite from those wading in mud. This is why it is called the 'extreme right' or 'far right'. This allows no ambition and fosters great disparity.

As an off-note, whilst different groups can be classified as on the left or the right, it does not mean they are compatible in working together. In fact, there are examples where those on the opposite sides are more alike than their peers. This demonstrates a lot of the fundamental issues which causes problem in clarification.

Example: tea-party libertarian can find a lot more in common with an anarchist than a royalist. Anarchists tend to believe in individualism to the point there is no one above them, rejecting all authority and free to live in their own at patch and communities, thus creating a parity, whilst Tea-party liberatarian generally against regulation and control of the political sphere authority, granting extra freedoms but removes any restrictions to these which tend to cause economical corporate powers to exploit and fill this vacuum unopposed. Anarchist is on the left due to the parity being enforced including rejecting economical supremacy, whilst tea-party liberatarian is on the right as it promotes economical supremacy. This again is more akin to the royalist who values the supremacy being encouraged but by different actors.

(Yes, I am aware this is simplified.)

I am not sure that our current models of political thought are correct. At the moment both terminate in totalitarian states. A better reflection would be the amount of control vested in government.

Anarchy vs Authoritarianism or the individual vs Statism would be more apt.

Currently most governments are functioning more on the Progressive model, where they state has an interest in everything for the supposed welding of its subject peoples.

I would agree that presently, the so-called right places emphasis on the individual but this is more a modern development which only a few decades ago was the provence of the left. It was classic liberalism that promoted the rights of the individual over those of the state.

As politics today are sorted thus, however, I will let the statement stand, with reservations.

But in doing so it also points of the fallacy of the original assertion, that rightwing politics are only a product of fear.

If we dissect individualism opposed to collectivism we would see that collectivism is more based on security and fear than the opposite extreme. It must base its self on self reliance and the ability to succeed personally than does the idea that the state is there to care for you and keep you safe.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yeah what terrible people, protesting at government policy. Farage would soon put a stop to that.

Fascism is characterised by corporate control over the economy, removal of union and worker rights and repression of protest, political expression and democratic rights. There is usually accounted some xenophobia to.

No, he wouldn't, and in any case the point is not that they picketed the conference - it's what they did - attacking delegates - hurling insults - spitting. Honestly - spitting - that's disgusting and you can get all sorts of lasty stuff from that.

For the benefit of those outside the UK, there is group of UKIP and Tory fellow travellers called the Taxpayers alliance. They came out with this policy statement:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34439965

This is the nature of the British (actually English) right wing. They have the compassion and morality of alley cats.

That's Thatcherism - a very specific form of British Right-Wing politics.

Right-wing politics tend to emphasise the betterment of one-self at the expense of others through guise of individualism, usually leading to a hierarchical system of those on top at various degrees over those at the bottom. It tends to use variables as bloodlines, wealth, ethnic-tensions, map boundaries, religion/ideology. This allows ambition and disparity to flourish.

Left-wing politics tend to emphasise the betterment of one-self in cooperation with others, the goal to create an open and fair society. This would be to treat your fellow human as equals and tend to promote a shared unity. This limits ambition and forces a parity.

Central position is an attempt to straddle these two views, promoting greater betterment, but preventing the extremes from occurring by limiting the power and excesses of those on top whilst promoting independence of those at the bottom. This usually is slow to change and react, but allows ambition limited by keeping an acceptable parity.

This is wildly inaccurate - the Right is generally about promoting a healthy society, with a minimum of government, the Left tries to use the government to achieve equality for the disadvantaged. Neither ideology is really about "one-self" at its core, both are actually about solidarity.

The Centre tries to promote a healthy society and uses government to try to guide the path of that society without resorting to either the default "hands off" Right-Wing approach or the coercive Left-Wing one.

What you are describing are Thatcherism, New Labour, and to a lesser extent the Orange Book. Thatcherism and New Labour are both very ego-centric and ultimately socially corrosive ideologies and we should dispense with them entirely.

[Beskar]

I am not sure that our current models of political thought are correct. At the moment both terminate in totalitarian states. A better reflection would be the amount of control vested in government.

Government is far too narrow. It is the amount of control invested in authority. Even if the government disappeared, it would be overran by corporations who would end up as some sort of defacto government in its stead. 'Government' as such, is pretty much a name for a power structure. It can be replaced with others easily enough.

Also, the left terminates into a situation where everyone pretty much has identical amount of powerlessness with no organisation and structures, kind of a wild-west situation of lawlessness on the extreme end, not a totalitarian government. A little too chaotic and infeasible for my tastes.

I would agree that presently, the so-called right places emphasis on the individual but this is more a modern development which only a few decades ago was the provence of the left. It was classic liberalism that promoted the rights of the individual over those of the state.

The right norm is luckily a far more left than many examples in history. But there is a reason I tried to avoid discussing individualism is because of the different meanings it could tell. In many respects, individualism is the province of the left and the right. Going to your example, the rights of the individual such as to practice 'homosexual acts' is clearly on the left, the freedom of religion. On the other hand, 'Freedom to Shoot People' is on the right, as the left advocates that individuals should not have the power of life and death, because this is always greatly abused.

But in doing so it also points of the fallacy of the original assertion, that rightwing politics are only a product of fear.

I haven't advocated this, but you would be correct. The left feels the abuse of power and position by those who wield it above themselves, as such, they advocate systems such as democracy which aims limits these powers to curb excesses.

It must base its self on self reliance and the ability to succeed personally than does the idea that the state is there to care for you and keep you safe.

Going back to @Greyblades, this is the opposite view of my example.

This is wildly inaccurate - the Right is generally about promoting a healthy society, with a minimum of government,

I will be honest, Phillipvs, if you just didn't give the erroneous propaganda piece about "promoting a health society" straight after your objection, I would have taken it more seriously.

I only have to look at the news to see how poorly the concept "promoting a healthy society" is being applied. All around me initiatives to ensure people are reintegrated in society are collapsing, health and social care budgets being slashed, all the support systems being strangled financially. People losing their incomes, their wages are being depressed, they are overworked. On the other hand, the richest are getting richer, enjoying tax cuts and tax evasion being rather rampant.

Unless your definition of "promoting a healthy society" means ensuring those at the top end up better off with the cost passed onto the poor... I have to say you are being misguided.

Also, the translation of "Minimum of Government" seems to translate into cutting tax rates for the rich and corporations, whilst cutting the welfare state, and then expanding our military and security forces.

the Left tries to use the government to achieve equality for the disadvantaged.

I cannot really argue much with this one.

Neither ideology is really about "one-self" at its core, both are actually about solidarity.

I argue otherwise. The left is usually more collective selfishness opposed to individual selfishness.
"Treating others like you should be treated yourself." is at its core selfish statement which promotes greater social cohesiveness.

What you are describing are Thatcherism, New Labour, and to a lesser extent the Orange Book. Thatcherism and New Labour are both very ego-centric and ultimately socially corrosive ideologies and we should dispense with them entirely.

I am not a fan of Thatcherism or New Labour either.

[Greyblades]

While it must be noted that you are better than most at not letting political alignment colour your thinking

I wish to retract back this evaluation .

[Beskar]

I wish to retract back this evaluation .

[a completely inoffensive name]

My side is about everything that is good in the world, your side is about everything that is bad.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I will be honest, Phillipvs, if you just didn't give the erroneous propaganda piece about "promoting a health society" straight after your objection, I would have taken it more seriously.

I only have to look at the news to see how poorly the concept "promoting a healthy society" is being applied. All around me initiatives to ensure people are reintegrated in society are collapsing, health and social care budgets being slashed, all the support systems being strangled financially. People losing their incomes, their wages are being depressed, they are overworked. On the other hand, the richest are getting richer, enjoying tax cuts and tax evasion being rather rampant.

Unless your definition of "promoting a healthy society" means ensuring those at the top end up better off with the cost passed onto the poor... I have to say you are being misguided.

Also, the translation of "Minimum of Government" seems to translate into cutting tax rates for the rich and corporations, whilst cutting the welfare state, and then expanding our military and security forces.

Struggling with the difference between principle and application, are we? Also, bear in mind the financial downturn and the massive hole in the budget left by Gordon Brown. It's all well and good to say we should be spending more on this or that, but the money has to come from somewhere. Also, you will note that the Conservatives have lifted thousands of people out of Tax, and this was a Conservative principle BEFORE the Coalition, and also that the military was savagely cut during the last parliament and is now unable to carry out most missions without American logistics - see Libya and the lack of Carriers and Harriers.

By healthy I meant "socially cohesive" in any case and that's achieved primarily through education, social care budgets are a left-wing tactic.

I cannot really argue much with this one.

The Left is, however, coercive - remember when Labour tried to ban criticism of religion? Also consider that between 1997 and 2010 they essentially bankrupted the country, putting everyone's livelihood in danger. Consider also that the last Labour government abolished the 10p tax rate and then instituted more "Tax Credits", essentially creating a system to pay back the money they had taken from the poor.

I argue otherwise. The left is usually more collective selfishness opposed to individual selfishness.
"Treating others like you should be treated yourself." is at its core selfish statement which promotes greater social cohesiveness.

"Treating others like you should be treated yourself." is not a Right-Wing belief, I doubt it would be a core Labour belief at the turn of the last century, either. This cod-philosophy is a modern cancer.

Consider the actual quote the "Golden Rule" , which is in ther Sermon on the Mount - which says that "This is the Law and the Prophets" then consider Matthew 34-40, which says that all the Law hangs on the two greatest commandments - which are "love thy God" and "love thy Neighbour as thyself".

The fetishisation of the Golden Rule has sheered it of it's context and robbed it of all meaning.

Historically, the Right appealed to tradition and social convention as the glue that held society together and gave it moral resilience whilst the Left decried the inherent economic and political unfairness of the same system. Crucially, both tried to appeal to people's inherent sense of "right" whilst presenting diametrically opposed ideal societies.

I am not a fan of Thatcherism or New Labour either.

In a world without God or morals they are, sadly, more popular than either traditional Toryism or the original Labour movement.

[Idaho]

Lib-dem, labour, either way you have shown some bias towards the left wing. While it must be noted that you are better than most at not letting political alignment colour your thinking I am still skeptical that you can evaluate the right wing without being biased. Thus: citation needed.

I'm not sure what Corbyn has to do with this, though I will agree he is indeed interesting and should make a good leader of the opposition but I still do not want the man in the driver's seat.

You use the word "bias" like a teenage youtube comment-maker.

Bias is when you present factual evidence in a selective fashion. Its when you purport neutrality, but have an agenda. It can also mean when you have a tendency toward a direction.

In the context of a political discussion where were are expressing our opinions and beliefs, it's meaningless.

I may *be* right or left-wing. I may *express* views pertaining to either. But that doesn't make me "biased". They are my beliefs or opinions.

For some reason the catch-all tag of "biased" is exclusively used against people's opinions by those with a right-wing bias (tendency).

[Greyblades]

Couldn't let a dumb thread die, could ya?

[Idaho]

You are welcome to my gift of education ;)

[Papewaio]

Don't worry about Idaho. He will become more right wing with age.

[Idaho]

I will! I try and guard against it. Conservatism, fear of change, xenophobia. All to be resisted.

[Fragony]

I will! I try and guard against it. Conservatism, fear of change, xenophobia. All to be resisted.

All to be questioned, are they really that. Fear of change and xenophobia are spells build into a magic stfu-wand that used to win any debate, but the wielder is on the defence now as things actually change, and xenophobia, well isn't that fear of change. Gonservatism, fear of change, xenophobia, why do you need three ways to say the exact same thing.

[rory_20_uk]

Like most beliefs, they don't need to make sense.

For example, Idaho appears to still live in Exeter. He has not moved where he lives frequently to ensure that he is resisting Conservatism and fear of change. I went to school in Exeter. Since then I've lived in over 10 different places.

Indeed, the resistance against the same things appears to be itself unchanging. Apparently this sort of fixed position is allowed.

"Xenophobia" is a term often used these days to describe anyone who is not thrilled to have their way of life utterly altered by other people, not reserved by those who are phobic or fear / repulsed by outsiders.

[Idaho]

I've gone cross-eyed trying to unpick those last two posts!

Conservatism, fear of change and xenophobia are all different things. The first two are linked, but not identical.

Rory - I have not moved where I live frequently?

I've lived in 3 different countries and 6 different cities in my life. I would happily move again (I'd like to live in the sticks) but I am am staying put as my children are in school.

[Fragony]

ffs Idaho, xenophobia litteraly means fear of the unknowm

[Greyblades]

Evidently I shouldn't have said anything at all.

[Idaho]

ffs Idaho, xenophobia litteraly means fear of the unknowm

Xenos = strange/foreign. Different to change.

[Fragony]

Xenos = strange/foreign. Different to change.

Education, try it again. Yeah it means that. Different to change so afraid of change, so xenophobia is the same thing as fear for change. You make Greek thinkers really sad I hope you are proud about yourself