Earth if no Dark Ages?

[Infinite-Possibilities]

There are a lot of folks that desperately clinging to the belief that everything wrong in the world is the fault of hard working taxpayers and the people they vote into office.

What's that got to do with this thread? Or the Nazis for that matter? Does trying to tie the genocidal regime from the Second World War in the loosest possible way (and thus is essentially meaningless) to modern day mainstream political parties really have any real significance?

[KEK]

Chum, it's a sliding scale.

A Democrat is on the political left of his nation's politics. Republicans are on the right of their nations politics. Within those parties are people who hold a more left wing or more right wing view of what is the view of the center of the party.

Compared to Canada, A Democrat is perhaps the equivalent of a right-wing Liberal or a "Red Tory" from the Conservative party. A Republican can be the equivalent of one of our right wing Tories if s/he is a liberal Republican, or they can be something which we see as being to the right of Atilla the Hun.

regards,
G.

I'm not sure what this has to do with my post, but the right and left are defined by their economic principles, they're relative terms in regard to each other but not the country you find them in. The Democrats and Republicans are both right wing, whether Americans acknowledge that or not.

The point I was making though, is that he's totally wrong when says that conservatism is always aligned with the right, and liberalism is always aligned with the left. Liberalism and conservatism are not even mutually exclusive themselves, let alone liberalism and right wing politics. It's authoritarianism that is the polar opposite of liberalism, not conservatism.

[The_Asgard_live]

I'm not sure what this has to do with my post, but the right and left are defined by their economic principles, they're relative terms in regard to each other but not the country you find them in. The Democrats and Republicans are both right wing, whether Americans acknowledge that or not.

Eh? How does this work? Does this mean that crisps are potato chips whether Brits acknowledge that or not? Chips are french fries, Govnah.

[KEK]

What does one have to do with the other? The definition of right and left wing is the same in both countries, and around the world. I'm not using the British definition, I'm using the definition. It's just that the Republicans and Democrats like the play the political landscape as if they're polar opposites, two ends of the spectrum, which helps them maintain the two party domination, when really nothing could be further than the truth.

The Democrats are slightly less right wing than the Republicans and slightly more liberal, and that's about it. The only left wing party in the US that I'm aware of that even approaches being mainstream is the Greens. There's a similar situation in the UK, with people thinking that the Lib Dems or even Labour are left wing, when they both right wing, just more liberal than the Conservatives.

I suppose that's what happens when you try and define a party based on economic (left and right) policies alone.

[The_Asgard_live]

What does one have to do with the other? The definition of right and left wing is the same in both countries, and around the world. I'm not using the British definition, I'm using the definition.

There is a universal standard for left/right? Like weights and measurements?

Unless you take into account how those words are interpreted by the person or people(s) you are conversing with/about, the conversation is meaningless. For example, the United States does not fit the definition of 'democracy', its a republic. But ask any American on the street if America is a democracy. How many people do you think will say no? For that matter... ask a United States citizen if a Mexican/Canadian citizen is an 'American'.

It's just that the Republicans and Democrats like the play the political landscape as if they're polar opposites, two ends of the spectrum, which helps them maintain the two party domination, when really nothing could be further than the truth.

I guess that depends. Are you talking about ideology or the politicians that claim to represent them? Two completely different things.

The Democrats are slightly less right wing than the Republicans and slightly more liberal, and that's about it. The only left wing party in the US that I'm aware of that even approaches being mainstream is the Greens. There's a similar situation in the UK, with people thinking that the Lib Dems or even Labour are left wing, when they both right wing, just more liberal than the Conservatives.

This is all well and good that you've decided on a definition and decided your right. But this is not how most(?) Americans interpret the world.

I suppose that's what happens when you try and define a party based on economic (left and right) policies alone.

What defines Republican/Democrat Conservative/Liberal is more than economic policy in the U.S.

[KEK]

There is a universal standard for left/right? Like weights and measurements?

Yes. The principles of left and right are fairly well defined.

I guess that depends. Are you talking about ideology or the politicians that claim to represent them? Two completely different things.

The politicians. It makes the media's life easier too. In fact simplifying things like that makes any discussion about the two easier, even if it is inaccurate. It's ultimately to the detriment of the American people too though, because it creates the illusion that there are only two options, further reinforcing the two party system, which suits both the Republicans and Democrats.

This is all well and good that you've decided on a definition and decided your right. But this is not how most(?) Americans interpret the world.

If they get their understanding of politician ideologies from their media and their politicians then I'm not surprised. This is a fairly objective matter though as the principles of left and right are pretty well defined as I've said, and while the Democrats might paint themselves and left wing for their own benefit, that doesn't mean they are.

What defines Republican/Democrat Conservative/Liberal is more than economic policy in the U.S.

I never said Republican, Democrat, Conservative or Liberal though did I? I said left and right.

[morrismike]

What does one have to do with the other? The definition of right and left wing is the same in both countries, and around the world. I'm not using the British definition, I'm using the definition. It's just that the Republicans and Democrats like the play the political landscape as if they're polar opposites, two ends of the spectrum, which helps them maintain the two party domination, when really nothing could be further than the truth.

The Democrats are slightly less right wing than the Republicans and slightly more liberal, and that's about it. The only left wing party in the US that I'm aware of that even approaches being mainstream is the Greens. There's a similar situation in the UK, with people thinking that the Lib Dems or even Labour are left wing, when they both right wing, just more liberal than the Conservatives.

I suppose that's what happens when you try and define a party based on economic (left and right) policies alone.

Our government contains elements far more left than you think and I would say they are both left of center (GW Bush in actually is far left of Obama or Clinton when you look at his action versus the public rhetoric). We spend more (per capita) on health care and welfare (not just for the poor - ag subsidies, businesses, etc.) than any other nation on earth. Right at this moment the politicians here are vainly attempting to postpone having to curtail correcting this issue to the next term of office. America is living "Atlas Shrugged" at this very moment. Look at the industry we've driven out of our country in the name of social justice. Our corporate tax rate is so high (at the national and state level) and our labor so unreasonable that we are losing our entire manufacturing base. As soon as China decides to tell us what interest rate we will pay on our debts we will instantly be just like Greece.

[KEK]

The reason so much welfare is paid in the US is because there's so much unemployment, and the reason there's so much unemployment is because so many of the laws favour the employer rather than the employee. So instead of what work there is being spread around more, employers are able to squeeze as much work as possible out of as few employees as possible, leaving a lot of people out of work. The US is hardly a welfare state, the poorest areas in America make a British council estate look middle class by comparison. And it's the high prices maintained by lobbying pharmaceutical companies that drive healthcare spending up in the US, leaving you paying more but getting less. In both cases, it's the influence that big corporations have and lack of regulation that's causing the problem, which is a decidedly right wing policy.

[morrismike]

The reason so much welfare is paid in the US is because there's so much unemployment, and the reason there's so much unemployment is because so many of the laws favour the employer rather than the employee. So instead of what work there is being spread around more, employers are able to squeeze as much work as possible out of as few employees as possible, leaving a lot of people out of work. The US is hardly a welfare state, the poorest areas in America make a British council estate look middle class by comparison. And it's the high prices maintained by lobbying pharmaceutical companies that drive healthcare spending up in the US, leaving you paying more but getting less. In both cases, it's the influence that big corporations have and lack of regulation that's causing the problem, which is a decidedly right wing policy.

We were paying a lot of welfare prior to the recession when everyone that cared to work was employed. I seem to remember the employers lobbying a while back for the highest corporate taxes in the first world. A full 45% of our population pays no income tax and those people vote for the folks trying to make that number larger. I'm afraid you are what Ann Rand would call a "looter".

[magictrick]

They had a 2000 year head start and the benefit of being taught by some very smart people. The fact that they didn't have to endure the dark ages helped, but that wasn't the deciding factor. Even if Earth hadn't gone through that period, we wouldn't have been as advanced.

[Shadows Angel]

The Dark Ages only effected Western Europe.
For those 600 years all scientific and cultural progress continued in Greece and the Middle East which were already more advanced than the West. It is progress from those areas that forms the basis for modern Western civilization.
Asian countries were completely unaffected by the Dark Ages, China, Japan, Korea and India all continued to progress.

It is a myth that we would be so much more advanced if the Dark Ages did not occur, they were an incredibly localized event.

I dont know this for sure but werent the areas unaffected technologically behind europe so in those few hundred years didnt they just catch up so i really didnt make a difference world wide.
of course i might be wrong though i not sure

[thekillman]

This whole dark ages thing is BS, you know that?

It's a concept invented after the medieval period when scholars yearned for the glory of the Roman Empire and all, and considered anything inbetween of little significance.