Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:What does Obama have to do with Socialism? (Score 1) 869

The right and left spectrums in other countries are unrelated to the right left spectrum in this country. I'll prove it for you real quick so there is no confusion.

Right in the U.S.A.: Opposes growing government
Right in any other country: Promotes growing government

The confusion is in the birth of the nation. The "right" or the "old guard" in this country is inherently anti-government, so to be a true "patriot", as in a member of the "old guard" or the right, you would also be very wary of your government and not promote a large one, but rather a small one with limited and enumerated powers. But to be on the "left" or the "new guard" you would need to be the opposite of whatever it is the "old guard" stands for.

In every country, even France, the left is anti-government and the right is pro-government. So in France, as an example, to be patriotic you would be pro-government.

The whole "new guard" vs. "old guard" actually came from France, and means just that, "left" vs. "right" in reference to the side they sat on of the room where they met to govern. The meaning changes from country to country, so it's more useful to use the following comparison gauging political spectrum in the U.S.A.

Right = Focus on the individual liberty
Left = Focus on the community needs

The community being the state, and the state being the federal government, so leftist = statist = socialist, not my definition, that just what a statist is. Characterizing Obama as right or left in another country is like comparing apples and oranges. Obama is however a statist, factually speaking he is the most statist member of his party. As a matter of principle he believes that the state can accomplish anything, and do it better than any individual.

And that's all fine and dandy, but there are no (as in zero) examples of the state actually doing better than the individual so I think his whole philosophy is bunk. That last little part is just my opinion, the rest is verifiable fact.

Slashdot Top Deals

If you had better tools, you could more effectively demonstrate your total incompetence.