I am amazed at how many comments on this web-log prove at least the first part of the following proposition:
The left think the right are evil, and the right think the left are dumb.
People with such a narrow world view really should get out and about a bit more.
I don't know who said:
"As much individual responsibility as possible, as little government as possible, and as few rules as possible?", but the National Party of Australia's basic philosophy supports a private sector-led economy, with minimal government intervention.
If you believe the conspiracy theory rog.
But you are happy now that you are no longer on the left and under that "great cloud of conspiracy", so I'd imagine you wouldn't subscribe to this conspiracy theory. I'd imagine that, not being partial to conspiracy, you would conservatively go with the mainstream position that human-induced global warming is a problem. Is that right?
They do do they Steve? - I'll try to remember that one.
Steve,
Yes there is a place for government. I am still trying to work out how much, and what type of rules and regulations deliver best environmental outcomes.
Are you an anarchist then Jennifer? Or would you put some conditions on that quote?
I agree with the quote too. But I would qualify it with the following points.
1. Without government, we have no laws or rules.
2. Without laws, we have anarchy.
3. Anarchy would be on the whole much worse than our current system.
4. Therefore there is a limit to how small government can be.
5. Laws/rules: they are there because as much as individual responsibility should be encouraged and is great, some people still just want to do what they please regardless of the adverse impacts for others. Laws regulate this, to discourage individual actions that have a net negative effect for society, and encourage actions that have a net good. Government (or some form of central decision making) is necessary. If not government, then what? The church? Mob rule? Violence?(stronger=better) Corporations?(more money = higher capacity to set the rules) Monarchy?
Rog: if you don't like conspiracy theories then you must feel uncomfortable that many who would be described as 'on the right' subscribe to the un-proved conspiracy theory that thousands of the worlds climate scientists are a part of a group of politically corrupted individuals who have doctored up this make-believe theory of global warming because they get lots of money in research funding for doing so?
Who said this:
"As much individual responsibility as possible, as little government as possible, and as few rules as possible."
BTW, I agree with the concept.
For a long time I have viewed both Nazism and Communism as variants of the "Left" - both are totalitarian collective regimes where the State owns capital and title and subjects are dependant on the State for their lives and livelihood.
Those on the "Right" support the freedom of the individual.
It may be worth noting that extremists of both left and right wings have similar personality disorders, and are often interchangeable. Some Nazi brownshirts were well known as previous communists. They were called "beefsteaks" - brown outside and pink inside. It would not surprise me if, after WW2, many former Nazis from East Germany reverted to rabid communism. Perhaps we should regard the political spectrum as a circle, rather than a straight line. Moderates are on one side of the circle, and extremists on the other. It doesn't matter whether you travel left or right to become an extremist. In the environmental debate I find similarities between raving left-wing environmentalists, and their equally raving right-wing opponents. A pox on both their houses. They are bullies who want to dominate others. I think bullying has been rightly described as one of the most despicable human pursuits.