Because the actual agenda of unrestrained action by those able to use intimidation and raw power to act as they want and damage whomever or whatever they please, to take all the goodies and leave the actual costs to others, would not be looked upon favorably by those they damage in their wake, they have found it necessary to promote utterly false "facts" to make it seem that they oppose others doing what they themselves intend. Some call this hypocrisy, but it is actually far more sinister than that, as all they actually oppose is anyone stopping their own criminal predation on the rest of society.
Campaign Contributions Are Free Speech Edit
The 5-4 vote on September 9, 2009 in the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was wrong. Whether direct or indirect, big money campaign contributions are corrupting. Money spent to aquire more money, be it bribery or just propaganda is self funding and any funds spent to counter such spending will be wholly sacrificial. Under such conditions there is extreme Moral Hazard as any profit generated by looting or avoiding responsibility for injuring others can go towards doing more of the same and thus can always outspend any counter activity to prevent such behavior.
Gateway Drug Edit
The idea that the use of one drug leads to another is a common claim made by drug warriors like New York State Senator Michael Ranzenhofer. “Everybody knows that marijuana is the gateway drug for more serious drugs, cocaine, heroin, and we have a very very serious problem of drug abuse and drug addiction within our community and within our state,” he asserted in 2012. See News Article Beyond the obvious logical fallacy of using "everybody knows" as evidence, the problem with his statement is that what connects marijuana with other drugs is their illegality. In effect, Ranzenhofer and fellow drug warriors insist on imposing a conenction that would otherwise not exist.
The Left wants to replace our democracy with Socialism
Socialism comes from socialized as in having concern for others and as opposed to anti-social - Hating everyone else or Un-Socialized - as in acting without any regard to the existence or needs of others. Thus Socialism is based on 4 values:
Empathy - the understanding what each other person's life is like "standing in their shoes"
Power Accountability - Where ever such power resides and so of necessity a government that is democratically controlled at the very least, and acting to control or restrain those who would profit from the damage to others that such criminals see as "government interference". That all who are in a position to make decisions that have an affect on the lives of others are agents of those others and held accountable as such agents. the only alternative is that they are overlords and not agents (this is the direct opposite of the Right wing propaganda) .
Empowerment - When a person is able to contribute at their highest possible level of accomplishment, they do reap the highest rewards, but the society has benefitted more by such accomplishment. When artificial class barriers are in place it is the entire society that suffers the loss of potential. If there is no "middle class" there is no market for the goods that make such a life and thus no market for either investment or labor to make those goods. There are natural limitations of total materials, but those who have no way to apply their ideas to create more, and use such materials more effeciently (or not at all) cannot do so and those with great money and wealth (particularly if controling such scarcity) will have an incentive to make sure such creativity does not happen. Only those with the incentive to maqke such improvements and the power to make it happen will do so, and this will always be the "Middle Class" virtually by definition. There is very much more about this but the basics are that money spent advancing those most in need advances everyone far in advance of the money spent.
Reality - perhaps the anti-socialists greatest hatred comes down to the actual data about what works for everyone and what does not. If you favor helping only yourself and damaging everyone else it will not recieve popular acclaim by any of those others you hope to damage to your own profit. Thus it is an absolute necessity that you create a smoke screen about everything you are doing, and maintain that fiction at every and all costs. Actual facts are the enemy and no ststement or thought expressed to others can be allowed that does not advance this goal no matter how crazy or illogical it is, and every effort must be made to make even the observation of such crazyness a moral equivalence equally as crazy. The success of such efforts goes directly to the destruction of society, and a worse life for everyone.````Freedem 17:43, August 14, 2011 (UTC)15:43, August 14, 2011 (UTC)
Democracy is a method of getting the voice of the people into the decisions that are made in Government, and 'Socialism' refers to an economic distribution system that puts the decision making on who gets what up directly up to the people.
Both of these are theoretical concepts used by academics to describe governmental systems for democracy and economic systems for Socialism. They overlap only in so far as the people have a voice. America was founded on the idea that the people are the government, or that the government representatives serve at the pleasure of the voters, however you want to put it. If you hear someone rage against "socialism", what they are really saying is that they want to take away your voice and vote in the decision making process.
Some people say that our Public School system or our Medicare system is Socialism in action. People should be saving money and paying for their own education and their own medical care, they say. I say that most people don't make enough money to be able to do that. I took out a loan to go to college, and it was around $26,000. It is taking me 5 years to pay that loan off. In 2003, I fought (and beat) cancer. That would have cost me up to $35,000, which was paid for by my Health Insurance. We have 43 million people in this country without health insurance, and without the ability to take out a school loan because they don't have the income to pay it back. Until Reagan started dismantling the GI Bill and free college education, which had been the rule since Thomas Jefferson established the University of Virginia, people from all economic backgrounds had the opportunity to attend a good college and get a great education.
One main difference in the philosophy between the Left and Right is that we believe that there is a floor when it comes to our standard of living. I believe that we all have the right to clean air, clean water, a good education, a healthy body and mind, and a life that lets us find spiritual meaning. These should not be privileges of wealth, but the basics that we have to work with in the 21st century. And I believe that everyone on the planet is worthy of the same treatment.
Chadlupkes 21:18, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Right-Wing Definition of Socialism is very different from the actual facts of Western European Socialism (WES) as practiced and also very different results from those claimed.
The Right wing definition is basically "Communism Light" that central Government planners decide the way the population should live, and confiscate from the productive to support a "welfare class".
The facts of course are that WES societies are free to do as they wish as long as they do not harm others, and that proscription against harm extends to all potential abuse of power, and unloading of costs onto society.
In addition WES countries have learned that natural monopolies are government, and must therefore be held accountable by the same processes that the Government itself is held accountable.
Also in many places investment by the whole society, can yield benefits to the whole society in excess of the costs. Education, Health, Emergency assistance, etc. are delivered individually to only those who would benefit, but the benefits that that individual can deliver back to the society, usually more than exceed the costs, just as an army that is trained and equipped can manage better than one that each soldier has to train and equip himself as best he can. FreeDem 02:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
The Left Opposes Religion (or Opposes Christianity)Edit
The "Cultural Wars" or "cultural divide" or "Secular Agenda"
First of course there is sly framing of a false duality. Secular is simply not about religion, and not favoring any religion or lack of it. Chess is a good example where everyone plays by the same rules, and just because a piece is called a bishop does not give it extra powers because your religion has them, and your opponent does not! And so it is with a secular society, you might be inspired by your religion, but to be given extra powers because of it, or have them removed where others have them is forbidden specifically by the first ammendment to the Constitution, but not as a part of what passes as "Conservative" for most.
Secondly there is a variety of Religous issues that cut across all left right boundries as many Libertarians and others on the political Right are vociferously Atheist or of another Religion such as Wicca and vigorously oppose the supremacy or even existence of Christianity as long as it does not empower the Left.
Similarly there is a large fight among many Fundamentalist groups that have had their Churches "steeple jacked" by folks who they percieve as not "New Testament" Christians, seeking to istall the theocratic "Ten Commandments" into every secular situation, but abhoring the "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" of the actual Liberal Jesus that they translate into saying "nice doggie" while reaching for a bigger stick.http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/9/20/143648/206
It is easy to forget that honest action by folk such as Martin Luther King used their religion to inspire their people to improve their own lives and not to go and impose their religious views on others as more false equivalency would tr and equate those who would make their religion the unaccountable law.
Similarly it is the Right that accuses the left of supporting the right wing theocratic agenda of such Fundamentalist Muslim groups as Al Queda, when on a policy basis the theocratic right wing of each side is all but indistinguisable if references to the name of the favored book is removed. Both oppose the socialized values mentioned above and hate the very concept of Secular.--Freedem 17:44, August 14, 2011 (UTC)17:37, August 14, 2011 (UTC)
The "Left" is a bunch of childish and crazy people, who don't know what they are talking about.
Again, the Spin Doctors and Propagandists have sold a very sick fabrication. The truth is that subscribing to a doctrine generated for you by propaganda think tanks is Childish, and based in ignorance and intellectual fallacy. "The Right" is at its base a fundamentally dishonest spin machine. It is they who rely upon ignorance and non cogent arguments to control the masses into making decisions against their better interests.
The Liberal MediaEdit
This is again a patent falsehood. Almost all current USA media is owned and operated by Republicans and Republican interest groups. The "Bias" so complained about by the "Right" is nothing less than their complaint that people were telling the simple truth; and thus exposing their fallacious and orwellian thinking and propagandas. The myth of the "liberal media" was created to force and coerce media establishments into becoming arms of the "Rights" propaganda establishment.
Totally false. We are against the abuse of power in all forms, be it corporate power, governmental power or military power. Honest business is necessary for goods to be created and distributed in a society, and any attempt to quantify a need or limit the nature of a product beyond assuring that it not cause damage to the user or bystanders injures the society. Dishonest business however would limit availability to their control and not bother with the cost incurred as long as it was not them incurring it.
Dishonest business practices will always be more profitable than honest ones or nobody would ever behave dishonestly. A totally "free market" that had nobody restraining such behavior, would very shortly cease to exist as nobody could trust anything said or done. This in fact happened at the end of the Bush Era when every bit of "security paper" was suspect and the entire ediface collapsed like a house of cards, and the entire economy has not recovered.
Without such restraint on the abuse of power, only criminals can succeed and the society will devolve to one run by criminal gangs. Preventing this is the greatest Moral Challenge of any civilization, and this and not pursuit of plesure and social connectivity that the Right Wing would most wish to eliminate for folks other than themselves is what has damaged every society, and by definition led to every dictatorship and totalitarian society.Freedem 17:47, August 14, 2011 (UTC)