Quote:
|
Originally posted by dgs212: Precisely my point. I think we can all (right, left, and everything in between and extending further) agree on this bare minimum of a right to personal freedom from expoitation as a fundamental life philosophy. How then can it lead to such wildly divergent opinions as "killing others is sometimes okay" versus "killing others is never okay," to boil down current events to overly simplistic yet elementally truthful terms? Is it simply a matter of one seeing personal freedom on an individual versus global scale? That is, would a rightwinger assume that it is their right (and everyone else's right) to secure for themselves as individuals the freedoms we desire, and would a leftwinger assume that it is their responsibility to secure those freedoms for everyone? I'm just trying to understand... |
I think the day to day politics that divides people (who all claim to celebrate Liberty) are often just cases of competing interests. Sooner or later there must be cooperation, compromise, sacrifice for everyone to enjoy Liberty.
Instead of actually disussing honestly what our interests are and how they can be mutually reached, groups that have a vested interest in their own existence (rather than the interests of their suppossed constituents) play one side against the other to create the illusion of ideological coflict rather than a simple question of "how can we both get what we want since we essentially both want the same thing."
Parties exist to perpetuate themselves, not to secure the interests of their constituents. Same goes for most ideologies.