| Political Philosophy |
| Jim Hlavac |
| Politics Home The Practicalist The Socialist Era Politics Re-Explained Fundamentals Domestic Affairs Economic Theory Foreign Affairs Libertarian Ideas Political Theory Philosophy Royalty & Theology |
Political Philosophy
| Political Philosophy Sections |
Too many people get caught up in left-right, old fashioned names of
things. So they can confuse efforts at explanation. So somehow right
wing dictatorships are different than left wing ones, still different than
monarchies or theocracies, yet the question is: Do you let people be free
culturally, linguistically, religiously and economically or do you not? The
repressed don't care what the repressors are called. They want freedom.
The newspapers and college class rooms are filled with people who
debate the use of various words to describe the worlds' governments.
"Oh yes, that's a leftist social democracy, and that's a rightist republican
regime." And just what does that mean? It usually means that the
leaders of the country are doing every thing they can to prevent the
development of the place while they line their pockets.
Every political discussion eventually, and usually sooner, decays into
some discussion of the meaning of the words. As if the words actually
made a difference. Is Iran a theocracy and North Korea a Communist
state? What, pray tell, is the difference in the two? Oh, yes, one set of
leaders claims they are mullahs for God and the other set of leaders claim
they are the commissars for the people. And the end result? Not a whit
of difference. There is general repression, the means of the economy are
controlled by the state. The people are driven to desperation.
Of what purpose then is the discussion by some that one is a
theocracy -- on the so-called "right" while the other is a communist nation
on the so-called "left" -- really? And just what do the poor people within
those countries see? Endless repression, and if you took an Iranian and
put him in North Korea the only thing he would notice is a different
language. The works of the government would be the same.
It is all semantics that gives those who support the power of the state
to argue that they are different -- and thus they are special. But there is
no difference. The words mean the same, the are synonymous. And that
then is no difference whatsoever.
things. So they can confuse efforts at explanation. So somehow right
wing dictatorships are different than left wing ones, still different than
monarchies or theocracies, yet the question is: Do you let people be free
culturally, linguistically, religiously and economically or do you not? The
repressed don't care what the repressors are called. They want freedom.
The newspapers and college class rooms are filled with people who
debate the use of various words to describe the worlds' governments.
"Oh yes, that's a leftist social democracy, and that's a rightist republican
regime." And just what does that mean? It usually means that the
leaders of the country are doing every thing they can to prevent the
development of the place while they line their pockets.
Every political discussion eventually, and usually sooner, decays into
some discussion of the meaning of the words. As if the words actually
made a difference. Is Iran a theocracy and North Korea a Communist
state? What, pray tell, is the difference in the two? Oh, yes, one set of
leaders claims they are mullahs for God and the other set of leaders claim
they are the commissars for the people. And the end result? Not a whit
of difference. There is general repression, the means of the economy are
controlled by the state. The people are driven to desperation.
Of what purpose then is the discussion by some that one is a
theocracy -- on the so-called "right" while the other is a communist nation
on the so-called "left" -- really? And just what do the poor people within
those countries see? Endless repression, and if you took an Iranian and
put him in North Korea the only thing he would notice is a different
language. The works of the government would be the same.
It is all semantics that gives those who support the power of the state
to argue that they are different -- and thus they are special. But there is
no difference. The words mean the same, the are synonymous. And that
then is no difference whatsoever.