Jul 132017

collectivism vs individual freedom

To fully comprehend that the political Left and Right are polar opposites is also to understand that the two completely opposite ideologies cannot co-exist.

This represents a great frustration to supporters of both the “liberal left” and of the “conservative right.”

Those on the “left” find themselves forced to compromise with the idea that at least “some capitalism” (on the Right) is necessary, for without it, there is little to no wealth for socialists to “re-distribute.” Those on the “right” find themselves forced to compromise with the notion that at least “some socialism” (on the Left) is necessary, for without it, the elderly, sick, and poor would be unable to survive.

Both camps share a common error. To the extent that each is sincere in its desire to address its concerns as stated (which is another matter entirely), the road to both ends (prosperity, security) has been clearly demonstrated to be Right: the environment of freedom and capitalism.

The inability to apprehend this is compounded by the notion that the “middle of the road”, or the “center” between Left and Right is the place to be on the political spectrum. But there simply is no such position. It does not exist. All that “exists” in terms of any identifiable ideas and moral codes are the two polar opposites: Left and Right. Beyond that there is merely movement, – a drift, never a “position.”

History has demonstrated time and time again that any attempted co-existence between Left and Right (the “mixed economy”) is temporary, and has regrettably ended in a drift towards the ideologies of the left. The eventual dissipation of national identities, state bankruptcies, and the poverty and suffering that result become another chapter in a history that refuses to be learned.

Like flies and insects drawn to the light that will kill them, so too, millions are repeatedly drawn to the illusion of light at the Left end of the political spectrum. The horror of what actually lies in wait for them is often incomprehensible or beyond the capacity to believe or accept. It can often take a few generations for the process to become clearly visible to all, and it is always the generation near the end of that process that must pay the greatest price.

These realities are among many reasons why too few fear the Left. Too few understand the destructive-when-followed actions and the contradictory-when-understood principles that define the Left. No one is clearly addressing the fundamental philosophy that drives those who do not share the ideals of freedom, capitalism, and individual rights.

So imagine if it was actually possible to have someone from the left side of the political spectrum – capable of understanding and expressing the viewpoints and fundamental philosophy of the LEFT – appear on JUST RIGHT.

Well, keep imagining because as we’ve already learned from repeated attempts, that just “ain’t gonna happen.” The Left does not debate and is grossly reluctant to reveal its true motivations, even though philosophers of the left throughout the years have enunciated these principles quite clearly.

However, we can emulate the experience of an actual philosophical debate between Left and Right. And that’s exactly what you will hear on today’s show, as Left faces Right in a serious and honest philosophical debate about what forces drive each political polarity.

Many will find it difficult to believe or accept what the Left actually represents. That’s perfectly understandable. While the assumed morality of the right side of the spectrum has been openly discussed, criticized, and condemned almost daily in the media and elsewhere, the true morality of the left side of the political spectrum is practically unknown.

After all, it is because it’s Just Right that the Left is repulsed by the philosophy of freedom and capitalism.

  2 Responses to “513 – Repulsion – Left meets Right”

  1. Agreeing to disagree simply means that both side understand that they are not going to find common ground and thus both can agree to the fact that they will not reach an agreement on the point having been argued.

    I think that is pretty straightforward. In fact, there has been a lot more peace in my life once I resigned myself to the fact that not everyone is going to understand the reality that I perceive and understand.

  2. Ouch. McKeever out-argues Metz while pretending to support the Collectivist point-of-view.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.