Question about the Right Wing

[Loren Pechtel]

There used to be a center right, but in recent years, it's vanished, especially in the US.

The center right were fiscally responsible people, who agreed with a moderate amount of necessary regulations, didn't usually think that billionaires deserved huge tax breaks, supported most aspects of social things, such as gay rights and marriage, and were often willing to compromise with the left. Those are just a few examples of the center right that we once had. Are there any of those left in our Congress? If you think so, please point them out to me.

Even my fairly conservative former representative, Drew Ferguson, chose not to run again, due to the extremism he saw in his party. Now we have some Trump endorsed idiot, who beat the other candidates who may not have been as extreme as him.

Exactly. In the early 60s my father made a run for office. Sacrificial candidate, he had no chance at all because he was in a D+60 district. It was purely about making his opponent stay home rather than going around helping other candidates. In the 80s he was a straight D voter--his politics didn't change, but the parties did and his location did.

These days there are zero such people in anything beyond local office, though, because a candidate has to face two elections: the primary and the general. A center right will lose to an extreme right, thus will never appear in the general and has no chance of being elected regardless of how the district leans.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Fascinating. So when I want to legalize drugs and prostitution, that makes me right of center? When I want to shut down the DEA and try all its employees under Nuremberg-style trials, that make me right of center? When I congratulated the military on switching from don't-ask-don't-tell to allowing gays to serve, that makes me right of center?

Nuremberg was only for the high level Nazis, not the average member of the German army.

I think a few at the top should get such treatment but most of them should simply be prohibited from ever working in a law enforcement capacity.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

3. Bigotry. Almost everyone agrees, or pretends to agree, that blacks, gays, women, etc. should enjoy equal rights.
4. Liberty, the very eponym of "Libertarian." This is where controversy enters and needs its own paragraph.

Liberty and Rights. Gays have the liberty to buy a gay wedding cake; but do bakers have the liberty not to sell them a cake? Jason?

Two things can be true at once, and in this case two things are true at once.
Conservatives - anti-gay-marriage, anti-forced-baking
Progressives - pro-gay-marriage, pro-forced-baking
Libertarians - pro-gay-marriage, anti-forced-baking

Is there really only one bakery in the country? Wouldn't you rather know who the bigots are instead of accidentally funding them?

And I'll divide your position even further:

I'm anti to forced skilled work. You shouldn't be allowed to deny a customer because they're gay, but neither should you be required to design a gay-themed item.

People have the liberty to visit a beach in California; but does a landowner have the liberty to post a No Trespassing sign on the privately-owned access to the beach? Jason?

Again, two things can be true at once. Is the only way to access the beach to trample on private property?

What's happening is that the beaches are by law public. There is also the concept of prescriptive easement--if a long-established path crosses your property you do not get to deny it's use. The rich landowners are trying to make the beach by their property de-facto private by blocking the path that they are legally required to allow passage on. This is not about trampling on private property, it's about trying to exclude everyone else from public land. We have also seen some disputes about this in areas where land ownership is in a checkerboard fashion of public and private. Private landowners are trying to use the control of four squares to de facto control the enclosed square. My memory is that the courts have looked favorably upon the claims by those who have very carefully crossed from one public square to another--it is inherently impossible to do this without intruding into the air above private land, but they don't touch the private land.

The cities have been willing to let the landowners reroute the paths for their convenience, but not to block them. We have something similar locally, although I am not aware of any attempts to block the paths. (But it's just BLM land out there, not beaches.) There's a long belt of gated communities along the southwest side of town. There are two public penetrations of this belt, one is in the form of a very long, narrow park whose outer edge touches the BLM land. The other is an actual paved road, although blocked by a locked gate--but there's a pedestrian gate within the big gate that I have never seen in any state other than standing open. I'm sure the developers are not happy about the presence of either of these. And the road one there are a lot of no trespassing signs on the fences that border it. (The road terminates in a flood control basin, I presume that's why the big gate exists.) I get the impression the owners do not like us hikers and mountain bikers who go down it.

The people of Ukraine should have the liberty to stay alive and enjoy their country. But that liberty will fail without outside help.

The people of Ukraine should have a government that attempts to protect said liberties as well. Their current kleptocracy is far from that. Instead we have a situation where the fight is over whether Ukraine is to be a US Satrap or a Russian Satrap. That you paint the former as liberty is confusing.

Ukraine had done a pretty good job of cleaning up it's act after 2014.

Employers have the liberty to reduce raises and worker safety. Should workers have the liberty to unionize and picket, or to expect a government mandated minimum wage? Jason?

Of course workers have the right to unionize and picket. Unionization is nothing more than free association, a fundamental right. Going on strike is nothing more than denying the sale of labor, and refusing to do business is another fundamental right. What kind of screwed up perception of libertarianism do you have where you think we are against freedom of association and freedom to refuse to conduct business?

The issue with unions is not a matter of whether they can organize, but whether the employers are free to treat a strike as simply not showing up for work and thus quitting.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I call myself a centrist because I do NOT have clear answers. Often I appreciate both sides of an issue and am grateful I am NOT a legislator with the need to take a stand. For example -- and now the progressives here may call ME a right-winger and/or homophobe -- I am NOT happy about coercing bakers. Many experts think teacher's unions are an obstacle to improving public schools. I do not know if they are right.

They are. It's a fundamental problem with unions--they present themselves as a source of competent labor and are unwilling to actually enforce that. Thus, in addition to supporting workers who have a legitimate grievance they tend to support workers who aren't good enough.

Unions are inherently an evil, the question should be whether they prevent a greater evil.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

For example, I expect our Libertarians to reply that they support the LIBERTY of a worker to pay voluntary dues to a union but also support the LIBERTY of an employer to hire non-union "scab" workers.

But in practice unions do not thrive in the presence of "right-to-work" laws.

And you miss what that's actually saying: The workers are voting with their feet and saying no to the union. Right-to-work is right-to-not-be-a-slave.

Are such laws "good" or "bad"? I see BOTH sides of this issue; but low-wage workers in today's America get an inadequate share of "the pie." Some work two jobs and are still homeless. I would advocate some sort of Universal Basic Income to alleviate America's growing income inequality, but UBI isn't coming to America any time soon. So meanwhile, allowing Walmart workers and Amazon workers to form successful unions is the best way to work within the system to address the problem.

That's not addressing the problem at all. Note the "working two jobs". That's not Wal-Mart of Amazon, that's people who are part time at two (or more) places because of either scheduling (a breakfast place or a lunch place is simply not going to have a need of an 8 hour shift from most of it's workers) or deliberately keeping them part-time to avoid paying benefits. The unions love to demonize the big non-union companies but the workers who can't afford a roof are working for small places.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Okay, you found one example. Good for you I guess. There are still plenty of beaches open to the public. I guess you're not free until you can access every beach, even the ones that other people own.

You failed to understand--the beaches are public. By California law beaches are public, period. There is no such thing as a private (ocean, I have no idea of the laws regarding freshwater beaches) beach in California.

When one faction is in power many laws are passed to favor labor. Then when another faction is in power many laws are passed to favor employers. The end result is a dense thicket of laws and regulations that neither side can easily navigate.

But you do not address this with an axe. You're bound to do more harm than good. The rules need far better organization. And the government really needs to get it's act together on how it's departments work. For any common action there should be one application, one approval.

The thing criticized is "when one faction is in power many laws are passed to favor labor". He points out that striking employees cannot be fired, making a strike a coercion. A strike should be as risky as any other business activity. Asking for special protections is exactly the same form of "each side wants regulations that favor them" that I wrote about above.

Yup, this is my big problem with unions. It's inherently a monopoly action.

I know you think that labor hasn't a chance without government backing, and I disagree with that. I think that labor would definitely have a strong case, if businesses didn't also have government backing. If you get rid of the pro-union AND the anti-union laws and regulations, it would be a level playing field. You see libertarians as only wanting to get rid of the pro-union side because that is the side you care about.

There is a reason some people like right-to-work laws. It is because they are a counter-narrative to closed-shop laws. Both are government activities.

Other than right-to-work what anti-union laws are there?

 

[bilby]

Right-to-work is right-to-not-be-a-slave.

Bullshit. Right-to-work is right-to-be-in-a-race-to-the-bottom.

It's a mechanism by which employers minimise wages, safety, respect, and security.

No civilised country permits it. Hell, even large parts of the USA, where workers are generally treated like utter shit, don't permit it.

 

[ZiprHead]

It is very predictable on this board. Something like "anarchist fascists who want to be hermits and rob everyone".

I think Libertarians are more like idealistic 16 year olds who haven't really thought things through.

Individual liberty is such an immature belief. Once people mature they realize that all people belong to the collective, be it the proletariat, the state, the nation, the race, or in some older traditions, the crown or the church.

That's the sort of simplification to complex problems that draw the immaturity label.

 

[lostone]

On this board I see the phrases "far right" and "extreme right" used an awful lot to describe political opponents. It made me wonder.
What does it mean to be just plain right, neither extreme nor moderate?
What does it mean to be moderate right or center right?

Do they even exist? Or is all of the right either far or extreme?

'Country Club Conservatives' would be center Right. Old Fashioned people who drink expensive scotch and invest heavily in stocks.

Libertarians are Conservatives who hate government and smoke weed.

 

[lostone]

White Christian Nationalists and Dominionists and other groups that want to destroy what they term the 'secular state' would be far right

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

SPOILER Alert!! When someone treats me with contempt I return the favor ten-fold.

You get so touchy when people respond to you in kind.

1. Taxes. Liberals and "statists" recognize that taxes are necessary. Conservatives and libertarians oppose taxes.

Government assistance to businesses. Conservatives and Progressives support it.

Hmmm. Where does government get the money to assist businesses? I thought libertatians don't think government should pick winners and losers. And a blanket "Government assistance to businesses" leads to cronyism, no? I think Trump's government is likely to assist Musk's businesses and other favorites.

Deliberately misunderstanding me?

WHEN did I ever deliberately misunderstand anybody?[/quote]

Post 33.

YOU wrote "Government assistance to businesses". (In future perhaps COMPLETE sentences would be better, ok? Color me stupid but I LITERALLY thought you were agreeing with the "Conservatives and Progressives." If you opposed "government assistance" I'd expect someone of your ilk to accompany the phrase with derogatories. You have no problem making your contempt for me quite visible.

Your point whas how "liberals support this" while "conservatives and libertarians oppose this". You wind up overlooking a lot, especially since conservatives don't "oppose this". That's the whole reason I pointed out that you apparently were deliberately misunderstanding me.

2. Regulations. E.g. Should drug companies be permitted to sell defective drugs? Should government mandate number of toilet stalls for employees? All viewpoints along the spectrum favor good regulations and oppose bad regulations. Fiscal conservatives and libertarians think regulators, even when enforcing good rules, must make do with a cheap skeleton staff since reducing taxes is of highest priority.

You've bought the hype and not the reality. It is said that conservatives campaign like libertarians and govern like progressives. Conservatives, like progressives, support regulations that help their side.

Everyone supports regulations they think are good. Will you pay for it? FDA budget is $7 billion. Too little?
FDIC had $128 billion in its insurance fund, and raised the mandatory premiums paid by private banks to increase the fund further. It spends about $3 billion annually even when there are zero bank failures. Regulations cost money.

The point, which you missed, is that conservatives don't oppose regulations. They like them just as much as progressives do, they just support different regulations. Your position on this one reminds me of a Christian I once met who insisted that Muslims were Atheists because Muslims denied the divinity of Jesus.

OMG. Are you really that dense? EVERYONE supports regulations that they APPROVE of. Your bragging that YOU support GOOD regulations is just laughable gibberish. You're infatuated with your own fatuity!

What you (deliberately?? ha ha ha) overlooked is the question I asked -- Will you raise taxes to PAY for regulation ?

Maybe you missed the entire thread of the conversation instead if deliberately misunderstanding me. Yes, both conservatives and liberals like regulation. And they support raising taxes to pay for their regulations. Did I claim to only support good regulations? I don't recall making that cliam. You obviously missed it when I wrote "conservatives campaign like libertarians and govern like progressives", it was right before the line that made you flip out.

So yes, the "two" sides have favorite regulations, which of course means everyone does, even when it doesn't.

4. Liberty, the very eponym of "Libertarian." This is where controversy enters and needs its own paragraph.

Liberty and Rights. Gays have the liberty to buy a gay wedding cake; but do bakers have the liberty not to sell them a cake? Jason?

Is there really only one bakery in the country? Wouldn't you rather know who the bigots are instead of accidentally funding them?

"In the country"? People busy planning a wedding should drive for half an hour hoping a baker a friend of a friend told them of will help?

You still make it sound like there is a severe dearth of bakeries in the US. One per town at most? Try searching for bakeries on Google Maps.

Oh, let's do micromanage a geographic detail. Force the gays to squander 3 hours Googling for a gay bakery is OK, just not 4 hours.

And what about restaurants; they are far more plentiful than bakeries. Restaurants should have the LIBERTY to disallow blacks, no?
"Try searching for restaurants on Google Maps."

So it is true, progressives don't know much about business. "I'd rather lose money than serve them" is the minority position. So let me tell you a bit of history.

The Montgomery Bus Boycott were a major event in US history. It is interesting to note the bus company wanted to desegregate their seating, but the government forbade it. Then as people switched to other modes of transportation the government stopped that too, including carpools and discouts on taxis.

You're so concerned with the small number of bigots that you're losing the big picture. Which party made the Montgomery Bus Boycott last as long as it did?

The boycott ended with people being arrested for arranging the boycott. Now who has arrest powers, business or government?

Then go to one owned by Muslims and ask for a "gay wedding cake" as it is called.

I guess it was essential to your "argument" to expose your own bigotries. Christians (or atheists or Randists or whatever your religion is) are better than Muslims; is that your point?

Pointing out some minor progressive hypocrisy.

People have the liberty to visit a beach in California; but does a landowner have the liberty to post a No Trespassing sign on the privately-owned access to the beach? Jason?

Again, two things can be true at once. Is the only way to access the beach to trample on private property?

This was not a hypothetical.

Get off my beach! How the wealthy are laying claim to California's coast

Complaints have been streaming in about security guards, hired by wealthy homeowners, removing people from public beaches

www.theguardian.com

Okay, you found one example. Good for you I guess.

Hunh?

You found an example. If you look hard enough in a country big enough eventually you'll find an example of anything you look for. The exception is not the same as the majority, unless you are arging for government control

Employers have the liberty to reduce raises and worker safety. Should workers have the liberty to unionize and picket, or to expect a government mandated minimum wage? Jason?

Of course workers have the right to unionize and picket. Unionization is nothing more than free association, a fundamental right. Going on strike is nothing more than denying the sale of labor, and refusing to do business is another fundamental right.

Now who's deliberately misunderstanding? Your follow-on paragraph suggests that you DO know a teeny-tiny bit about the "right-to-work" controversy. But in the sentence I've bolded you've pretended not to know.

If you sincerely want to understand the unionization controversies Google is your friend. Just click somewhere besides crackpot sites like Mises, or wherever you get your confused ideas.

Now you're upset that I agree with unionization. I must have really rustled your jimmies.

Pity. I did answer yours, and you beg out "but I'm a centrist".

I try to explain why centrists don't have the easy answers that your ilk and other extremists have. I offer to answer specific questions. You respond with insult. You really are infatuated with your own fatuity!

That's why you switched from trying to describe "center right" and "moderate right" to the topic of "conservatives and libertarians" and then to the topic of "libertarians", the last in quotes because of your demonstrated knowledge of the subject.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Right-to-work is right-to-not-be-a-slave.

Bullshit. Right-to-work is right-to-be-in-a-race-to-the-bottom.

It's a mechanism by which employers minimise wages, safety, respect, and security.

No civilised country permits it. Hell, even large parts of the USA, where workers are generally treated like utter shit, don't permit it.

If it's not a right to work state you have no choice but to work for whatever union covers your industry. And if you have no choice about working for somebody you're a slave.

 

[bilby]

Right-to-work is right-to-not-be-a-slave.

Bullshit. Right-to-work is right-to-be-in-a-race-to-the-bottom.

It's a mechanism by which employers minimise wages, safety, respect, and security.

No civilised country permits it. Hell, even large parts of the USA, where workers are generally treated like utter shit, don't permit it.

If it's not a right to work state you have no choice but to work for whatever union covers your industry. And if you have no choice about working for somebody you're a slave.

Is this an attempt at humour?

 

[laughing dog]

Right-to-work is right-to-not-be-a-slave.

Bullshit. Right-to-work is right-to-be-in-a-race-to-the-bottom.

It's a mechanism by which employers minimise wages, safety, respect, and security.

No civilised country permits it. Hell, even large parts of the USA, where workers are generally treated like utter shit, don't permit it.

If it's not a right to work state you have no choice but to work for whatever union covers your industry. And if you have no choice about working for somebody you're a slave.

WTF? Slaves cannot quit their employer/owner, but workers can. How do you come up with such nonsense?

 

[Politesse]

Right-to-work is right-to-not-be-a-slave.

Bullshit. Right-to-work is right-to-be-in-a-race-to-the-bottom.

It's a mechanism by which employers minimise wages, safety, respect, and security.

No civilised country permits it. Hell, even large parts of the USA, where workers are generally treated like utter shit, don't permit it.

If it's not a right to work state you have no choice but to work for whatever union covers your industry. And if you have no choice about working for somebody you're a slave.

You don't work for your union, you work for an employer. And you can quit at any time if you don't like having a salary.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Right-to-work is right-to-not-be-a-slave.

Bullshit. Right-to-work is right-to-be-in-a-race-to-the-bottom.

It's a mechanism by which employers minimise wages, safety, respect, and security.

No civilised country permits it. Hell, even large parts of the USA, where workers are generally treated like utter shit, don't permit it.

If it's not a right to work state you have no choice but to work for whatever union covers your industry. And if you have no choice about working for somebody you're a slave.

Is this an attempt at humour?

So you have no rebuttal. Powerful unions are slavemasters.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Right-to-work is right-to-not-be-a-slave.

Bullshit. Right-to-work is right-to-be-in-a-race-to-the-bottom.

It's a mechanism by which employers minimise wages, safety, respect, and security.

No civilised country permits it. Hell, even large parts of the USA, where workers are generally treated like utter shit, don't permit it.

If it's not a right to work state you have no choice but to work for whatever union covers your industry. And if you have no choice about working for somebody you're a slave.

WTF? Slaves cannot quit their employer/owner, but workers can. How do you come up with such nonsense?

If you're not in a right to work state the unions can prohibit you from working in your trade. You can quit and become unskilled labor, but good luck having a decent life if you take that path.

 

[laughing dog]

Right-to-work is right-to-not-be-a-slave.

Bullshit. Right-to-work is right-to-be-in-a-race-to-the-bottom.

It's a mechanism by which employers minimise wages, safety, respect, and security.

No civilised country permits it. Hell, even large parts of the USA, where workers are generally treated like utter shit, don't permit it.

If it's not a right to work state you have no choice but to work for whatever union covers your industry. And if you have no choice about working for somebody you're a slave.

Is this an attempt at humour?

So you have no rebuttal. Powerful unions are slavemasters.

“Slavemasters”? A slavemaster has slaves. Union workers are not slaves in any rational sense of the term.

So are you satirizing right wingers on purpose?

 

[lostone]

You lose some freedom by being in a union. If that is too much to lose, in your personal opinion, for the benefits of being in a union, that ought to be your choice.

 

[bilby]

Right-to-work is right-to-not-be-a-slave.

Bullshit. Right-to-work is right-to-be-in-a-race-to-the-bottom.

It's a mechanism by which employers minimise wages, safety, respect, and security.

No civilised country permits it. Hell, even large parts of the USA, where workers are generally treated like utter shit, don't permit it.

If it's not a right to work state you have no choice but to work for whatever union covers your industry. And if you have no choice about working for somebody you're a slave.

Is this an attempt at humour?

So you have no rebuttal. Powerful unions are slavemasters.

You do know that only a handful of staff work for a union, right? Members do not work for the union, any more than you work for your lawyer or doctor.

Members pay the union to provide a service.

I wasn't aware that you were so unbelievably badly informed as to require a rebuttal for something as utterly absurd as your claim. I figured you had to be attempting humour.