NationStates Jolt Archive

I got this from a friend (a fellow NSer), who will remain anonymous unless he requests otherwise:

American Indian Collectivism

Past Myth, Present Reality

By Carlos L. Rodriguez, Craig S. Galbraith,
and Curt H. Stiles

In the past, most if not all North American indigenous peoples had a strong belief in individual property rights and ownership. Frederick Hodge (1910) noted that individual private ownership was “the norm” for North American tribes.

Likewise, Julian Steward (1938, 253) asserted that among Native Americans communal property was limited, and Frances Densmore (1939) concluded that the Makah tribe in the Pacific Northwest had property rights similar to Europeans.’ These early twentieth-century historians and anthropologists had the advantage of actually interviewing tribal members who had lived in pre-reservation Indian society.

By the late 1940s, however, these original and firsthand sources of information had died, and false myths and historical distortions began to take dominant shape. By the mid–1960s, the tone in many college history books, history-inspired films and novels, and even speeches had completely changed (Mika 1995). A typical historical distortion, for example, is found in Baldwin and Kelley’s best-selling 1965 college textbook, The Stream of American History, where they write, “Indians had little comprehension of the value of money, the ownership of land . . . and so land sharks and grog sellers found it easy to mulct them of their property”(208). These myths were further fueled by popular books such as Jacobs’ (1972) Dispossessing the American Indian, which suggested that Native Americans felt that land (and other property) was “a gift from the gods” and as such not subject to private ownership. Gradually more and more people started to honestly believe that the indigenous people of North America had been historically communal, non-property oriented, and romantic followers of an economic system more harmonious with nature.

Today, tribal leaders, politicians, and various interestgroups in both the United States and Canada often repeat these myths as fact when discussing business, economics, and entrepreneurship during tribal conferences and congressional hearings (Selden 2001).

Terry Anderson (1995) attributes the beginning of the myth to settlers seeking farm land in the Great Plains, who interacted only with nomadic tribes that did not view land as an important asset. These settlers mistakenly generalized the lack of interest in land to infer a lack of property rights among all tribes. We argue that this fiction was further propagated in the nineteenth century by a virtual army of East Coast newspaper journalists, dime novelists, and Washington politicians who, in spite of writing about Native Americans, often had little contact with tribal groups. Reported, retold, and unchallenged, these incorrect perceptions ended up as the basis for later laws and institutional codification.

Compounding the problem was the land tenure system of the modern reservation. The system institutionalized and codi- fied the legends, with dramatic and unfortunate consequences for indigenous entrepreneurship and economic development.

THE RESERVATION SYSTEM

In the United States, the modern relationship between land tenure and the reservation system was formally established with the General Allotment Act of 1887, known as the Dawes Act, and later with the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act. These governmental actions institutionalized a land tenure and property rights system that was fundamentally collective in nature, and they created obstacles to effcient economic organization.

Over time, congressional actions and judicial decisions created four types of land tenure on reservations: individual fee simple (privately land owned by individuals), individual trust (held in federal trust for individuals), tribal trust (held in federal trust for the tribe), and fee simple tribal land (owned by the tribe, but not in federal trust). Modern reservation land tenures are, for the most part, a combination of individual and tribal trust land. Modern reservation land tenures are, for the most part, a combination of individual and tribal trust land. Land that was used individually for a homestead or for subsistence farming typically became somewhat like personal property and constituted individual trust land. These assets could be improved, leased, or inherited among tribal family members. Tribal trust land was managed by the elected tribal council.

Although individual trust lands resemble fee-simple private property, they are nevertheless still within the Indian trust and the rules and regulations established by the various laws. Title, for example, cannot be transferred. Hence, while individual trust land can be mortgaged, it cannot be used as collateral. The income derived from the asset, rather than the asset itself, becomes the collateral for the loan. There are also jurisdictional issues associated with loan defaults or other claims on individual trust land. In addition, successive generations of inheritance create fractional ownership of property among distantly related tribal members, which may prevent reaching consensus regarding the use of the asset as collateral.

Gradually more and more
people started to believe that
the indigenous people of North
America had been historically
communal, non-property
oriented, and romantic followers
of an economic system more
harmonious with nature.

Another limitation is civil and tribal litigation. As an increasing number of cases are filed related to individual property rights, inheritance, and divorce, these assets become virtually useless as forms of collateral. Finally, many properties are now suboptimal in size for modern agricultural development.

These increased transaction costs inevitably raise the cost of capital. Thus they create inherent inefficiencies and render real estate, usually the most important source of capital for entrepreneurial initiatives, virtually inaccessible for those purposes (see de Soto 2000). The potential for accumulating equity capital is severely limited and much of reservation land sits underutilized as a capital resource. The increased cost of capital inhibits individual initiative and shifts the focus to tribal trust land. As a result, over the last century second, third, and fourth generation tribal members have adopted a more collective perspective in property ownership.

Another largely ignored factor has been the continuous migration of the more entrepreneurially inclined tribal members off the reservation. In a study of entrepreneurial spin-offs from casino gaming on U.S. reservations, Galbraith and Stiles (2003) found that, according to many senior tribal members, the more entrepreneurial indigenous individuals and families had moved off the reservations to start businesses in the cities.

THE MOVE TO COLLECTIVISM

Whatever the reasons, there has been a dramatic evolution in the past several decades to a more collective orientation among indigenous people in the United States. We believe that this trend has been driven by collective land tenure systems that are counter to both the historical context and culture of the indigenous communities.

De Soto (2000) has made the forceful argument that economic development requires the establishment of institutions that protect property rights and the creation of a legal system sophisticated enough to allow the efficient transfer and development of these rights, as well as the ability to extract full benefit from them. In his discussion of the economic problems confronting the poor of South America, for example, de Soto (2000) argues that the entrepreneurial initiatives of these groups are severely restricted by their inability to access the most basic and important source of capital, i.e., their land.

Rather than the “institutional voids” found in other parts of the world (de Soto 2000), the North American native populations face an entrepreneurial problem that is grounded in the “frozen capital” of the reservation system. The arrangement forces collective ownership on cultures that were historically non-collective, possessing well-defined property rights and personal ownership of productive assets, and highly entrepreneurial. It also creates legal barriers, which increase both organizational and transaction costs.

Not surprisingly, individual entrepreneurial activity among tribal members has been an abysmal failure. Galbraith and Stiles (2003) investigated gaming and non-gaming Native American tribes in the southwestern United States and found mean average business startups for non-gaming tribes of typically less than 0.15 per 100 adult tribal members. This is a business birth rate significantly lower than most developed economies (about 0.37/100 adults in the United Kingdom and estimated at over 1.00 in the United States) (Levie and Steele 2000; Fraser of Allander Institute 2001).

The picture is even bleaker for employment from business startups. The vast majority of the tribal startups were microenterprises or hobby businesses, generating employment several levels below typical employment generated from business births in developed economies.

What are the reasons behind this low level of entrepreneurial activity? A large part is simply due to the barriers to individual property rights created by the reservation system. Non-gaming-related entrepreneurial firms cannot access their individual property rights created by the reservation system. Non-gaming-related entrepreneurial firms cannot access their individual or family-speicific capital, and thus need to compete at the low micro-level of entrepreneurial activity. On the other hand, gaming-related individual enterprises, which tend to be somewhat larger, are mostly protected monopolies providing inputs to a tribal-owned casino, and thus shielded from the higher organization and transaction costs associated with the reservation system.

Early indigenous people in North America were both highly entrepreneurial and acutely aware of the economic forces around them, but labored under a regime of high transaction costs associated with a fragmented, nonuniform and nonstandardized system of laws, contracts, and language. These economic disadvantages were further institutionalized by a nineteenth- century collective land tenure system that was alien to the cultural, economic and entrepreneurial context of most indigenous tribes of North America. This misdirected public policy prevents indigenous populations from exploring the full potential of entrepreneurial initiatives.

Even so, within the last two decades several forces are at play that now create an opportunity, at least for some tribal communities, to engage in entrepreneurial activities that could contribute to economic development. These opportunities have come in the form of: (a) government-sanctioned monopolies, such as casino gaming, which have created substantial income for some reservation economies, (b) environmental economies, particularly in the area of game hunting and fishing on reservations, and (c) the sale of natural resources, such as minerals, timber, and oil that are best accessed and managed by large estate holdings.

For tribes with access to these types of opportunities, the gains can be substantial.But successful entrepreneurial behavior must balance three competing forces: (a) the scale efficiencies of environmental activities and natural resource management, (b) individual entrepreneurs’ need to have less restrictive access to their “frozen capital,” and (c) the social pressures and policies created by the historical distortions regarding indigenous attitudes toward property rights and the productive use of environmental resources. Entrepreneurial success depends on taking advantage of the first and overcoming the obstacles posed by the latter two.

REFERENCES

Anderson, Terry L. 1995. Sovereign Nations or Reservations? An Economic History of American Indians. San Francisco, CA: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy.

Baldwin, Leland, and Robert Kelley. 1965. The Stream of American History, (3rd ed.). New York: American Book Company.

Densmore, Frances. 1939. Nootka and Quileute Music. Washington, DC: Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 124.

De Soto, Hernando. 2000. The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else. New York: Basic Books.

Fraser of Allander Institute. 2001. Promoting Business Start-ups: A New Strategic Formula. Final Report to the Fraser of Allander Institute for Research on the Scottish Economy. Glasgow: University of Strathclyde.

Galbraith, Craig, and Curt Stiles. 2003. Expectations of Indian Reservation Gaming: Entrepreneurial Activity within a Context of Traditional Land Tenure and Wealth Acquisition. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship.

Hodge, Frederick. 1910. Handbook of American Indians North of Mexico. Washington, DC: Government Printing Offce.

Jacobs, Wilbur. 1972. Dispossessing the American Indian: Indians and Whites on the Colonial Frontier. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Levie, Jonathan, and Laura Steele. 2000. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. Glasgow: University of Strathclyde.

Mika, Karin. 1995. Private Dollars on the Reservation: Will Recent Native American Economic Development Amount to Cultural Assimilation? New Mexico Law Review 25(Winter): 23–34.

Selden, Ron. 2001. Economic Attitudes Must Change. Indian Country Monitor, June 13.

Steward, Julian. 1938. Basin-plateau Aboriginal Sociopolitical Groups. Washington, DC: Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 120.

CARLOS L. RODRIGUEZ, CRAIG S. GALBRAITH, and CURT H. STILES are professors at the Cameron School of Business at the University of North Carolina Wilmington. This article is based on their chapter, “False Myths and Indigenous Entrepreneurial Strategies,” in Self-Determination: The Other Path for Native Americans, eds. Terry L. Anderson, Bruce Benson, and Thomas E. Flanagan (Stanford University Press, 2006).

source (http://www.perc.org/perc.php?subsection=5&id=802)


So, contrary to what the Left would have you believe, the Native Americans believed in individual freedom, not collectivism. Yet another lost fact rescued from the politically correct memory drain!

So, contrary to what the Left would have you believe, the Native Americans believed in individual freedom, not collectivism.

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the Left believes in individual freedom. Things like: a woman's individual freedom to choose whether or not to abort a fetus or a gay man's individual freedom to marry another gay man.

It's the Right who want to collectively blanket everyone under their beliefs.

Also, not all tribes are/were the same.

So, contrary to what the Left would have you believe, the Native Americans believed in individual freedom, not collectivism. Yet another lost fact rescued from the politically correct memory drain!

It's really kinda passe to hold Indians up as paragons of communal society.. that kind of argument went out in the early '70s, except perhaps among aging hippies. :p

In any case, not everyone on the Left is a communist.. %20-30, tops.

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the Left believes in individual freedom. Things like: a woman's individual freedom to choose whether or not to abort a fetus or a gay man's individual freedom to marry another gay man.

It's the Right who want to collectively blanket everyone under their beliefs.

Also, not all tribes are/were the same.

The Left doesn't believe in freedom to own private property, freedom to spend one's money how one chooses, etc. Also, I'm not right-wing. I'm libertarian. The only difference between Left and Right is which part of your life they think should be controlled.

For the record, I'm privately 100% pro-life, but I believe it should be a woman's right to choose. I also support gay marriage- not civil unions, but full-fledged gay marriage.

I got this from a friend (a fellow NSer), who will remain anonymous unless he requests otherwise:

source (http://www.perc.org/perc.php?subsection=5&id=802)

So, contrary to what the Left would have you believe, the Native Americans believed in individual freedom, not collectivism. Yet another lost fact rescued from the politically correct memory drain!
The left is out to mess with our minds again, eh?

*Shakes fist at Philip Slater*
SLAAAAAATEEEEEERR!!!

So, contrary to what the Left would have you believe, the Native Americans believed in individual freedom, not collectivism. Yet another lost fact rescued from the politically correct memory drain!
Exactly where and when did the 'left' ever use Native Americans as examples of collectives?
All I can remember about whenever the plight of the N.A's is raised is that it's nearly always about how enviornmentally aware they were/are and how much they respected the land.
Nothing about being 'communists'.

Unless of course you view someone actually caring about the effect they have on the environment as communist.



Incidently, has anyone else noticed the increase & preponderance of rabid right-wingers on this board as of late? What's happened? Did one of the republican-apologist forums get shut down or something?

Incidently, has anyone else noticed the increase & preponderance of rabid right-wingers on this board as of late? What's happened? Did one of the republican-apologist forums get shut down or something?

Just the natural consequence of the facts being on our side, of course. :)

I believe most people who call themselves "left", especially on here, are libertarian. Usually leftists are NOT Totilarian authortarian whores like Stalin who want to take everything away from everyone. No! No! No! We want to give everyone freedoms, freedoms to not have your lives controlled by the government. Freedoms to be yourself. People on the right nowadays though either want big buisiness to controll the world, or themselves to. To them everyone has to follow perfect moral values, usually Christian, which is the leading religion in the world, but not the only. Right-wings see only their point of view, and no one else's. That is why the world should be Libertarian, where people can walk around naked everywhere!


OOC: i'm kinda joking about the naked thing ;)

I got this from a friend (a fellow NSer), who will remain anonymous unless he requests otherwise:



source (http://www.perc.org/perc.php?subsection=5&id=802)


So, contrary to what the Left would have you believe, the Native Americans believed in individual freedom, not collectivism. Yet another lost fact rescued from the politically correct memory drain!
So instead of a useful, informative posts about Native Americans, we get slander of a group of people with an idealology you disagree with. Good job.

snip
That is why the world should be Libertarian, where people can walk around naked everywhere!


OOC: i'm kinda joking about the naked thing ;)
Shouldn't have said that last line.
You would've gotten LG's vote for sure if he thought you really did mean the naked thing.

Hooray for Native Americans. I envy them though, they get discounts.

I got this from a friend (a fellow NSer), who will remain anonymous unless he requests otherwise:


Just as a beside-the-topic point... I'm always immediately wary of any thread that starts with a comment like:

"I got this from a friend..."

It means you aren't willing to take responsibility for the data yourself.

Seeing as you're all Americans and therefore can't tell your Left from your Right anyway - who gives a crap about a flawed analysis designed to shore up the consumerite agendae of ardent sociopaths living today?

Just the natural consequence of the facts being on our side, of course. :)
Or maybe your side is just better at manipulating their lies to sound like facts.

Exactly where and when did the 'left' ever use Native Americans as examples of collectives?
All I can remember about whenever the plight of the N.A's is raised is that it's nearly always about how enviornmentally aware they were/are and how much they respected the land.
Nothing about being 'communists'.

Unless of course you view someone actually caring about the effect they have on the environment as communist.

Incidently, has anyone else noticed the increase & preponderance of rabid right-wingers on this board as of late? What's happened? Did one of the republican-apologist forums get shut down or something?

The common theme we hear (and I can't say it's from the Left, but it certainly is popularized) is that they had no concept of land rights - we're told that they believed that the land belonged to everyone.

I suppose that's why, after the Spanish introduced the horse to the continent, native peoples in America spent a lot of time warring with each other over control of territory, long before they got around to resisting European colonization.

The common theme we hear (and I can't say it's from the Left, but it certainly is popularized) is that they had no concept of land rights - we're told that they believed that the land belonged to everyone.

I suppose that's why, after the Spanish introduced the horse to the continent, native peoples in America spent a lot of time warring with each other over control of territory, long before they got around to resisting European colonization.

Where is this true? Who's teaching this? Are you sure that they aren't being misquoted? When did teachers get so dumb?

Almost every teacher I had, and my parents (who were teachers) was an unabashed leftist.

Not one of them, from fifth grade onward, taught that NA had "no concept" of land rights. {Before 5th grade, we generally just heard about how they lived.}

We were taught that they had the same regionalisms and greeds that every human has. We were taught that they fought over living space and came up with rules to codify "whose" living space it "ought" to be, and why.

We were taught that they didn't necessarily grasp European-style contract law concerning land. *Not at first, anyhow*. That's just because it was a system codified in a different way.

This sounds like a lot of bullshit from Left and Right.

Is everyone taking retard pills?

The common theme we hear (and I can't say it's from the Left, but it certainly is popularized) is that they had no concept of land rights - we're told that they believed that the land belonged to everyone.

I suppose that's why, after the Spanish introduced the horse to the continent, native peoples in America spent a lot of time warring with each other over control of territory, long before they got around to resisting European colonization.
im pretty sure, if you think about it, that east coast indians had no understanding of the european way of holding property.

they didnt buy and sell land, they occupied it and if someone else wanted it, they fought for it.

within the group, it would have to depend on how they built their homes. if they lived in permanent structures, they probably had ownership rights to their homes and the spot their home sat on. if they were semi-nomadic, they wouldnt have the same individual property rights to land.

their group hunting territory wouldnt have belonged to any one person but to the group. the definition of who was in that group varied from tribe to tribe.

in any case, for anyone to suggest that there was ONE way of thinking for all native american groups is silly. there were over 500 different nations in1492 in what is now north america. today in new mexico alone there are about 25 different reservations all with their own laws customs and rules.

"These early twentieth-century historians and anthropologists had the advantage of actually interviewing tribal members who had lived in pre-reservation Indian society."

as opposed to lewis henry morgan (1818-1881), who came up with the term "primitive communism". that guy never met an indian in his life...

Look, babbling about "the left" and equating collectivism with "leftism" and talking like a paranoid schizophrenic about what "The Left would have you believe" accomplishes nothing. Right, Left, these terms are so simple and stupid and pointless, for this very reason.

As for native americans, well it looks like we're generalizing there too. Apparently there was only one tribe, not 500? Interesting. Well hell, they're all injuns eh?

The common theme we hear (and I can't say it's from the Left, but it certainly is popularized) is that they had no concept of land rights - we're told that they believed that the land belonged to everyone.

...within the group. common property regimes /= universal common property regimes. nor do common property regimes mean that there are no rules governing access within the group, either.

not all groups had common property, of course - we are talking about a set of groups that varied from classic egalitarian forager bands to classic god-king empires, after all. but to quote richard lee (http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:ZuqtmjJnGDYJ:www.udel.edu/anthro/ackerman/hunter.pdf+primitive+communism+richard+lee&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=7&client=firefox-a),

"[common property] regimes were, until recently, far more common world-wide than regimes based on private property. In traditional CPRs, while movable property is held by individuals, land is held by a kinship- based collective. Rules of reciprocal access make it possible for each individual to draw on the resources of several territories. Rarer is the situation where the whole society has unrestricted access to all the land controlled by the group."

Frederick Hodge (1910) noted that individual private ownership was “the norm” for North American tribes.
...
Hodge, Frederick. 1910. Handbook of American Indians North of Mexico. Washington, DC: Government Printing Offce.

well that's certainly well cited

*ahem* (http://digitalscanning.com/miva/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=DP&Product_Code=7525)
"Handbook of American Indians North of Mexico by Frederick Webb Hodge This comprehensive listing of tribal names, confederacies, settlements, and archeology was originally begun in 1873 as a list of tribal names. It grew to include biographies of Indians of note, arts, manners, customs and aboriginal words. Included are illustrations, photographs and sketches of people, places and everyday articles used by the Native Americans. In 4 Volumes."

Things like: a woman's individual freedom to choose whether or not to abort a fetus . . .

Fetus, you must have meant Human fetus.

Woman abort Humans, they are not aborting giraffes.

By the late 1940s, however, these original and firsthand sources of information had died, and false myths and historical distortions began to take dominant shape. By the mid–1960s, the tone in many college history books, history-inspired films and novels, and even speeches had completely changed

of course, the post ww2 anthropologists didn't just sit around making shit up. they went out and did extensive field work among groups that hadn't been quite so conquered, including various remote peoples of north america (such as the inuit), as well as others around the world.

and while the specifics varied greatly, the generalities meshed quite well with what many native american groups believed about themselves, the early boas and pals ethnographies, and the even earlier reports of them (once you got past the "poor ignorant savages" nonsense, at least).

Where is this true? Who's teaching this? Are you sure that they aren't being misquoted? When did teachers get so dumb?

Almost every teacher I had, and my parents (who were teachers) was an unabashed leftist.

Not one of them, from fifth grade onward, taught that NA had "no concept" of land rights. {Before 5th grade, we generally just heard about how they lived.}

The belief that Native Americans had no concept of land ownership is pretty common in academia. Probably because it isn't as black and white as "they did" or "they didn't" in every single case. People tend to group every Native American into one big collective of "Native Americans" when that isn't the case. But, just some examples of who is teaching this:

This is from George Catlin's website (http://catlinclassroom.si.edu/interviews/al-murray.html). He held a degree in law but left it to study and paint Native American culture:

"Many of the conflicts with land ownership were complicated by misunderstandings. For the American Indian, there was no concept of ownership of land. How could one sell land that one did not own?"

This is from Professor JeDon Emenhiser, Ph.D., in an article on the Humbolt Sate University website (http://sorrel.humboldt.edu/~jae1/case.html):

"Indian people, who believe they have occupied the American continent from time immem-orial, had no concept of land ownership until Europeans arrived."

Here is a review of the educational film (http://osulibrary.orst.edu/video/agri69.html) "Going to the Sun: A Creation Story of Waterton Glacier International Peace Park" on the Oregon State University website:

"Going to the Sun explores the clash between two opposing world-views, the conservationist tribal culture of the Native American with its great sense of the land's spiritual value but no concept of land ownership, versus the individualistic, acquisitive spirit of the pioneer, with its need to tame and dominate nature."

An excerpt from Paul Creasman's paper on The Political Restabilization of the Southeastern United States Indians (abstract, PDF) (http://nautarch.tamu.edu/shiplab/01paul/links/ANT%20451%20The%20Political%20restabilization%20of%20SE%20US%20indians.pdf) for Anthrpology 451 at Texas A&M:

"Many Indians had no concept of land ownership; they felt they
belonged to the land."

Aside from this, there is quite a bit more out there. I can't spend my whole afternoon citing academic sources that teach this though. It may be incorrect, but it is a common belief in modern academia.

Fetus, you must have meant Human fetus.

Woman abort Humans, they are not aborting giraffes.

They probably would, wouldn't they?

"Miss Smith, you are pregnant with a giraffe... do you want to carry it to term?"

One of the more bizarre thread-hijacks I've ever seen...

They probably would, wouldn't they?

"Miss Smith, you are pregnant with a giraffe... do you want to carry it to term?"

One of the more bizarre thread-hijacks I've ever seen...

I think the problem is people who don't respect a woman's right to get pregnant with a giraffe if she wants to. It's her body!:)

Fetus, you must have meant Human fetus.

Well .... duh. I wasn't aware there were people here actually so retarded that I'd have to clarify.

Woman abort Humans, they are not aborting giraffes.

A fetus is no more human than your liver.

A fetus is no more human than your liver.

which is to say it is a human liver, but not a human.


but anyways, back to them commie indians...

Fetus, you must have meant Human fetus.

Woman abort Humans, they are not aborting giraffes.
No, women don't abort humans. They abort human fetuses. A fetus is no more a human than an appendix is.

If there's such an ingrained assumption that the Native Americans were 'communist', why was the phrase 'Indian Giver' so prevalent?

The phrase obviously implies that the Native Americans had a concept of ownership. Why else would it be used as a derogatory adage in days-gone-by?

In the United States, the modern relationship between land tenure and the reservation system was formally established with the General Allotment Act of 1887, known as the Dawes Act, and later with the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act. These governmental actions institutionalized a land tenure and property rights system that was fundamentally collective in nature, and they created obstacles to effcient economic organization.

hold up. the dawes act institutionalized a foreign concept of collective ownership? the motherfucking dawes act?! had these fucks ever even read the goddamn fucking dawes act? the act which specifically states that reservation land will be handed out to heads of households and individuals, and can be bought and sold by individuals? what are they, morons?

Actually, it is a commonly-spewed "fact" that "Indians were collectivists!" the extreme left often uses to 'support' their 'argument'.

If there's such an ingrained assumption that the Native Americans were 'communist', why was the phrase 'Indian Giver' so prevalent?

The phrase obviously implies that the Native Americans had a concept of ownership. Why else would it be used as a derogatory adage in days-gone-by?
i believe that the concept of "indian giver" reflects the idea that indians went by a somewhat different system of ownership and transfer of ownership than europeans did. that, coupled with the need to get along with the new white masters of the land (and to deal with those who wanted to take advantage of indians not knowing their legal rights in the european system) led to many misunderstandings when it came to the "sale" of anything between europeans and indians.

Actually, it is a commonly-spewed "fact" that "Indians were collectivists!" the extreme left often uses to 'support' their 'argument'.
what argument would that be?

i believe that the concept of "indian giver" reflects the idea that indians went by a somewhat different system of ownership and transfer of ownership than europeans did. that, coupled with the need to get along with the new white masters of the land (and to deal with those who wanted to take advantage of indians not knowing their legal rights in the european system) led to many misunderstandings when it came to the "sale" of anything between europeans and indians.
But it still shows that they had a concept of ownership and it was widely recognised that they did.

Which again shows that the OP of this thread is just making shit up to attack the left.

what argument would that be?

that other regimes of access and use rights can, and have, existed. i've made it multiple times (though i tend to go with the ju/'hoansi of southern africa myself) on this forum, actually.

But it still shows that they had a concept of ownership and it was widely recognised that they did.

Which again shows that the OP of this thread is just making shit up to attack the left.
yes

and it also sneaks in the notion that anthropologists of the early 20th century couldnt possibly have had an agenda when doing their studies. say something along the lines of thinking its a good idea to "make indians white" by breaking up reservations into personally held property.

that other regimes of access and use rights can, and have, existed. i've made it multiple times (though i tend to go with the ju/'hoansi of southern africa myself) on this forum, actually.


I think the quote marks were implying something a lot more simplistics, e.g. "leftism rUL3z LOL".

The common theme we hear...is that they had no concept of land rights - we're told that they believed that the land belonged to everyone.

those two ideas are directly contradictory. which doesn't mean that people don't attempt to hold them, merely that it is silly to do so.

but what is probably actually meant is that their concepts of land rights were often wildly at odds with the imposed colonizer conceptions, and this idea is being misrepresented as having no concept at all. much the same as christians to this day are fond of accusing wiccans and neopagans of being atheists. different = none, for some reason.

that other regimes of access and use rights can, and have, existed. i've made it multiple times (though i tend to go with the ju/'hoansi of southern africa myself) on this forum, actually.
damn you extreme leftists for suggesting that other systems of ownership that exist, exist.

according to article 1, sec 2 of the 1839 cherokee constitution, "the lands of the Cherokee Nation shall remain common property..."

damn those politically correct cherokees!! didn't they know, back in 1839 (or '27, though i like the '39 wording better), that they were merely replicating a myth invented in the 1940s?

according to article 1, sec 2 of the 1839 cherokee constitution, "the lands of the Cherokee Nation shall remain common property..."

damn those politically correct cherokees!! didn't they know, back in 1839 (or '27, though i like the '39 wording better), that they were merely replicating a myth invented in the 1940s?


http://www.cinema.com/image_lib/5141_004_thumb.jpg

what argument would that be?
That "Communism works", when it does'nt.

That "Communism works", when it does'nt.
:eek:

Commie!!!

*flees*

That "Communism works", when it does'nt.

your argument being that groups which are fairly described as operating on 'primitive communism' don't work?

damn you extreme leftists for suggesting that other systems of ownership that exist, exist.

it is grossly unfair of us, isn't it? we ought to be ashamed of our naked and shameless abuse of factual data about the universe.

your argument being that groups which are fairly described as operating on 'primitive communism' don't work?
Yeah, well it did'nt work...After all, look at what happened to em'...You snooze on the Technology front, you lose big-time...

I've heard many an extreme lefty speak...They got big hard-ons for the American Indians...

http://www.cinema.com/image_lib/5141_004_thumb.jpg

that explains everything, actually

Is this what is being referred to?

"The president in Washington sends word that he wishes to buy our land. But how can you buy or sell the sky? The land? The idea is strange to us. If we do not own the freshness of the air and the sparkle of the water, how can you buy them?"

"Every part of this Earth is sacred to my people. Every shining pine needle, every sandy shore, every mist in the dark woods, every meadow, every humming insect. All are holy in the memory and experience of my people."

"We know the sap which courses through the trees as we know the blood that courses through our veins. We are part of the Earth and it is part of us. The perfumed flowers are our sisters. The bear, the deer, the great eagle, these are our brothers. The rocky crests, the juices in the meadow, the body heat of the pony, and man, all belong to the same family."

"The shining water that moves in the streams and rivers is not just water, but the blood of our ancestors. If we sell you our land, you must remember that it is sacred. Each ghostly reflection in the clear waters of the lakes tells of events and memories in the life of my people. The water's murmur is the voice of my father's father."

"The rivers are our brothers. They quench our thirst. They carry our canoes and feed our children. So you must give to the rivers the kindness you would give any brother."

"If we sell you our land, remember that the air is precious to us, that the air shares its spirit with all the life it supports. The wind that gave our grandfather his first breath also receives his last sigh. The wind also gives our children the spirit of life. So if we sell you our land, you must keep it apart and sacred, as a place where man can go to taste the wind that is sweetened by the meadow flowers."

"Will you teach your children what we have taught our children? That the Earth is our mother? What befalls the Earth befalls all the sons of the Earth."

"This we know: the Earth does not belong to man, man belongs to the Earth. All things are connected like the blood that unites us all. Man did not weave the web of life, he is merely a strand in the web of life. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself."

"One thing we know: our God is also your God. The Earth is precious to him and to harm the Earth is to heap contempt on its Creator."

"Your destiny is a mystery to us. What will happen when the buffalo are all slaughtered? The wild horses tamed? What will happen when the secret corners of the forest are heavy with the scent of many men and the view of the ripe hills is blotted by talking wires? Where will the thicket be? Gone! Where will the eagle be? Gone! And what is it to say goodbye to the swift pony and the hunt? The end of living and the beginning of survival."

"When the last red man has vanished with his wilderness and his memory is only the shadow of a cloud moving across the prairie, will these shores and forests still be here? Will there be any of the spirit of my humans left?"

"We love this Earth as a newborn loves its mother's heartbeat. So, if we sell you our land, love it as we have loved it. Care for it as we have cared for it. Hold, in your mind the memory of the land as it is when you receive it. Preserve the land for all children and love it, as God loves us all."

"As we are part of the land, you too are part of the land. This Earth is precious to us. It is also precious to you. One thing we know: there is only one God. No man, be he red man or white man, can be apart. We are brothers after all. "


- Chief Seattle, one of the last spokesmen of the Paleolithic moral order, around 1852, in a letter to the president of the United States of America. Federal agents were inquiring about buying the tribal lands for the arriving immigrants.

- Chief Seattle

or at least hollywood's rendition of something that he might have said (though the buffalo weren't exactly a pressing concern out in the pacific northwest...)

or at least hollywood's rendition of something that he might have said (though the buffalo weren't exactly a pressing concern out in the pacific northwest...)
OH shit, you're right. I'm looking at the real speech now.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2344/chiefs4.htm

OH shit, you're right.

it's ok, i usually am

it's ok, i usually am
Don't let that chest get too puffy.

Look, babbling about "the left" and equating collectivism with "leftism" and talking like a paranoid schizophrenic about what "The Left would have you believe" accomplishes nothing. Right, Left, these terms are so simple and stupid and pointless, for this very reason.
:D
Beat me to it.
In fact, this whole discusion is pointless. What does it matter what anyone beleived over a hundred years ago? It doesn't change the present and no similar revelation, true or not, ever will.

I got this from a friend (a fellow NSer), who will remain anonymous unless he requests otherwise:
That friend has never happened to post on the forums under the name "Roach-Busters", has he? ;)



source (http://www.perc.org/perc.php?subsection=5&id=802)


So, contrary to what the Left would have you believe, the Native Americans believed in individual freedom, not collectivism. Yet another lost fact rescued from the politically correct memory drain!
"The Left"?

Who is "the Left"?

Where did "the Left" say it believed thus?

And who said the Left does not believe in individual freedom? The only people who don't are authoritarians like Hitler, Stalin, Kim Jong-Il, to a lesser degree George W. Bush and his ilk. (Don't even give me the tired old shit about Bush believing in individual economic freedom. Corporations, last I checked, are not individuals.)

Yeah, well it did'nt work...After all, look at what happened to em'...You snooze on the Technology front, you lose big-time...

I've heard many an extreme lefty speak...They got big hard-ons for the American Indians...

technology had essentially nothing to do with it. technology has an interesting way of evening out through trade or imitation or whatever (as happened quite quickly in the americas - 16th century europe was not exactly all that impressive on the tech front anyway)

it was the waves of disease wiping out 70%+ of people in each group that fucked it all up so lopsidedly. imagine trying to fight off an enemy immediately after your civilization essentially collapsed overnight.


lots of people on the left have an instictive sympathy for the underdog, as opposed to those on the right who love a good bully to worship.

lots of people on the left have an instictive sympathy for the underdog, as opposed to those on the right who love a good bully to worship.
Yeah, the Soviets and Commies were real underdogs :rolleyes:

Yeah, the Soviets and Commies were real underdogs :rolleyes:


Is everything about the red scare with you lot? I promise not to hide under your bed with a chainsaw.

The common theme we hear (and I can't say it's from the Left, but it certainly is popularized) is that they had no concept of land rights - we're told that they believed that the land belonged to everyone.

I suppose that's why, after the Spanish introduced the horse to the continent, native peoples in America spent a lot of time warring with each other over control of territory, long before they got around to resisting European colonization.

On the contrary, it's generally said they thought the land belonged to NO ONE. It's a vast different. They shared the land not just with other people but with other beings. They are held up as an example living in balance with the needs of the environment.

Can't belong to everyone when it belongs to no one.

To the OP, most people on the left do not support communism, myself included. We encourage individual rights and social responsibility. It's vastly different.

"The Left"?

Who is "the Left"?

Where did "the Left" say it believed thus?

In another thread, it was deduced that "the Left" is actually a guy called Philip Slater.
Don't know what he's been saying about the indians, though, nor where he's been saying it.
:rolleyes:

Yeah, the Soviets and Commies were real underdogs :rolleyes:
Marry, sirrah, but thou mistake'st us. Nor Soviets, nor Commies supporteth the Left; troth, while I'd not swear to't, 'tis but only nominally leftist that the Soviets and their ilk can profess to be. You do wrong us indeed, good sir.

Marry, sirrah, but thou mistake'st us. Nor Soviets, nor Commies supporteth the Left; troth, while I'd not swear to't, 'tis but only nominally leftist that the Soviets and their ilk can profess to be. You do wrong us indeed, good sir.
Yeah, whatever...Wether or not certain Leftists are commies or not is irrelevant...They're still douchebags.
We encourage individual rights and social responsibility. It's vastly different.
*snicker*...Riiiiight...

Yeah, whatever...Wether or not certain Leftists are commies or not is irrelevant...They're still douchebags.

Calling half of an entire political spectrum "douchebags" is a flame. Knock it off.

... Why do we care? They got their land taken away and were massacred. Why would we want to emulate them? *Goes back to jeering at both parties*

Yeah, whatever...Wether or not certain Leftists are commies or not is irrelevant...They're still douchebags.

*snicker*...Riiiiight...

Wow. The power of this argument is profound. Do you have an actual argument or are you just trolling and flamebaiting.

Now, which side of the spectrum wants to decide who can marry whom? Oh, right, conservatives. Which side of the spectrum wants to deny personal rights to choose? Oh, yeah, conservatives. Which side wants to hinder religious freedom? Conservatives again. Which side wants to abridge the freedom of expression? Conservatives again.

Now, which individual rights is it that the 'left' wants to deny people?

Now, which individual rights is it that the left wants to deny people?
Prayer in school is religious freedom. Wasn't it the left that got that banned?

Yeah, well it did'nt work...After all, look at what happened to em'...You snooze on the Technology front, you lose big-time...

I've heard many an extreme lefty speak...They got big hard-ons for the American Indians...

What technology were they lacking in? Cleanliness? They lost because we pretty much whiped them out because we were so freakin' dirty. They didn't have so much rampant disease so encountering our dirty behinds killed them

Prayer in school is religious freedom. Wasn't it the left that got that banned?

It's not against the rules to have prayer in school. You simply cannot organize it becuase it exerts pressure on others who also deserve religious freedom. It also amounts to a government endorsement of religion as public schools are a part of the government.

You are free to do any praying you like provided you don't ask the government to support you in doing it.

EDIT: Is saying you can't have sex in schools an abridgement of reproductive rights as well? Rights only allow us to do as we like on our private property unless expressly stating otherwise (like the right to assembly). There is no right to use any venue you like to support your religion, your ideas, your beliefs, etc.

Prayer in school is religious freedom. Wasn't it the left that got that banned?
It's not banned. Teacher-led prayer is banned. Individuals can play all you want.

The Left doesn't believe in freedom to own private property, freedom to spend one's money how one chooses, etc.

Only if one begs the question, chiefly by defining the meaning of the word "left" from within the confines of an extremely tiny and very opaque ideological box. (http://www.mutualist.org) :)

Now, which individual rights is it that the 'left' wants to deny people?

The right to dispose of my assets as I see fit.

The left seems to think that if I am financially successful, through my own efforts, then there is some mysterious necessity to remove from me some of the results of my efforts and transfer these to others.

The left seem to think that if I create something, again through my effort, then some significant part of this thing should enter into common ownership.

The left seem to think that as there exist people that need the help of others, we all have to be compelled to help these people, rather than allowing us to choose to do so.

The left seem to think that if I have, through my own efforts, the means by which to pay for improved services, I should not be allowed to do so. Particularly where it comes to health care, education and the provision for my future self.

The left, effectively removes choice by forcibly removing assets from individuals and using these assets to provide services, regardless of these services being neither the best nor the most cost effecient that can be provided.

I prefer to choose for my self. I do not need the state to choose for me.

The right to dispose of my assets as I see fit.

The left seems to think that if I am financially successful, through my own efforts, then there is some mysterious necessity to remove from me some of the results of my efforts and transfer these to others.

The left seem to think that if I create something, again through my effort, then some significant part of this thing should enter into common ownership.

The left seem to think that as there exist people that need the help of others, we all have to be compelled to help these people, rather than allowing us to choose to do so.

The left seem to think that if I have, through my own efforts, the means by which to pay for improved services, I should not be allowed to do so. Particularly where it comes to health care, education and the provision for my future self.

The left, effectively removes choice by forcibly removing assets from individuals and using these assets to provide services, regardless of these services being neither the best nor the most cost effecient that can be provided.

I prefer to choose for my self. I do not need the state to choose for me.
I can't think of a reason why a rich person should get preferential health care.

I prefer to choose for my self. I do not need the state to choose for me.

Fine, many/most historical examples do, in fact, demonstrate such a tendency to whatever degree. However, to ascribe the attribute to such an expansive, generalized, and analytically worthless label as "the left" is to attribute to any number of ideologies positions to which they do not subscribe. See also: #70 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11279398&postcount=70)

I can't think of a reason why a rich person should get preferential health care.

Because they can pay for it due to their effort or luck. Are you also suggesting that a rich person should not be able to get better food, or a better car, or a better looking partner, etc? Why is health care singled out?

Begging the question (a "leftist" ideology necessarily entails statist measures). Fine, many/most historical examples do, in fact, demonstrate such a tendency to whatever degree. However, to ascribe the attribute to such an expansive, generalized, and analytically worthless label as "the left" is to attribute to any number of ideologies positions to which they do not subscribe.
It is not begging the question when the question was "which individual rights is it that the 'left' wants to deny people?", is it? It is answering that question, explicitly.

I am now off to look at post #70

Edit. It seems to me that you are arguing that any questioning of the limitation of rights that all left wing ideologies entail is begging the question. It is not, it is questioning the very basis of the ideology. If you don't like it, then justify these rights limitations, rather than just try to exclude them from discussion.

It is not begging the question when the question was "which individual rights is it that the 'left' wants to deny people?", is it? It is answering that question, explicitly.


My thought was that it is begging the question when one assumes a premise ("the left" necessarily aims at statist goals/procedures) in one's answer that is not necessarily true. Even so, I was unsure about the accuracy of the statement, so the line in question was removed.

edit:

It seems to me that you are arguing that any questioning of the limitation of rights that all left wing ideologies entail is begging the question.


Again, I was thinking that the premise that a "left-wing" ideology must necessarily limit the rights in question, when clear examples indicating otherwise exist (post #70), amounted to begging the question.

The right to dispose of my assets as I see fit.

The left seems to think that if I am financially successful, through my own efforts, then there is some mysterious necessity to remove from me some of the results of my efforts and transfer these to others.

The left seem to think that if I create something, again through my effort, then some significant part of this thing should enter into common ownership.

The left seem to think that as there exist people that need the help of others, we all have to be compelled to help these people, rather than allowing us to choose to do so.

The left seem to think that if I have, through my own efforts, the means by which to pay for improved services, I should not be allowed to do so. Particularly where it comes to health care, education and the provision for my future self.

The left, effectively removes choice by forcibly removing assets from individuals and using these assets to provide services, regardless of these services being neither the best nor the most cost effecient that can be provided.

I prefer to choose for my self. I do not need the state to choose for me.
While I agree wholeheartedly, I'm kind of concerned by what you, the OP, and several other fellow libs believe to be the meaning of the word "Left". If we're going to divide the political spectrum into two clear shades of left and right, I'd definitely fall in on the left, but like you I believe individual rights and assets are best safeguarded by the individuals in question rather than their governments. Perhaps it would be less confusing to refer to them as "socialists" or some similar term?

Because they can pay for it due to their effort or luck. Are you also suggesting that a rich person should not be able to get better food, or a better car, or a better looking partner, etc? Why is health care singled out?

Are you joking? You're comparing a Ferrari to a person's health? And I'd look down on anybody who chose a mate based on monetary wealth.

My thought was that it is begging the question when one assumes a premise ("the left" necessarily aims at statist goals/procedures) in one's answer that is not necessarily true. Even so, I was unsure about the accuracy of the statement, so the line in question was removed.

The left, in all of its forms, aims at wealth redistribution to some degree (from total communism to minimal welfarism). It is essentially what makes an ideology 'left' rather than centre or right.
As such the only questionable part of my assertion would be whether this redistribution is carried out by the state. I would be fascinated to see a mechanism for redistribution that does not involve the state. To the best of my knowledge no such mechanism has ever been described, but my knowledge is far from omplete so it may exist.

The right to dispose of my assets as I see fit. Rubbish.I prefer to choose for my self. I do not need the state to choose for me.And more rubbish.

I'm as left as you can get, and like you, I don't want some faceless entity robbing me of the fruits of my labour. Unlike you though, I'm not a complete hypocrite about it, and I don't promote the freeloader philosophy you cherish.

Your society enables you to generate the wealth you enjoy. To counteract the damage you inflict on others in the process, your society nicks part of your wealth. It's an entirely fair, if hopelessly idiotic, process - and I'm no more sympathetic to your whining about having to give something to get something, than I am to the plights of other common thieving scum.

That you lack the insight into what enables you to become wealthy, or simply lack the balls to be honest about it, in no way makes you right about any of your claims.

You want the opportunity to live off others, without leaving them any possibility for others to combat your leech-like behaviour - but you complain that society at large employ the same method against you, to counteract the damage you cause.

Regardless of what you think leftwingers are, I doubt you can think up anything worse than yourself.

The common theme of left wing ideologies, isn't to limit freedoms or take away your rights. It's to stop people like yourself from victimizing others, and thus prevent you from hindering their persuit of wealth, happiness & personal freedom.

Because they can pay for it due to their effort or luck.


Within the confines of an actual free market, this may be an adequate justification. However, let us not forget that, historically, there are plenty of examples of the wealthy or otherwise economically advantaged who have come into their positions by means other than "effort" or "luck." Additionally, there are plenty of similar examples of the same achieving their positions by explicit subversion of free market ideals. This does not justifiy the use of statist redistribution in a tit for tat manner. It does, however, raise a legitimate call for justice by and for those who have been wronged. It also indicates that neither "side" of this particular debate is innocent.

While I agree wholeheartedly, I'm kind of concerned by what you, the OP, and several other fellow libs believe to be the meaning of the word "Left". If we're going to divide the political spectrum into two clear shades of left and right, I'd definitely fall in on the left, but like you I believe individual rights and assets are best safeguarded by the individuals in question rather than their governments. Perhaps it would be less confusing to refer to them as "socialists" or some similar term?

So what do you understand by the term left then? What makes you think you fall on the left if you believe that "individual rights and assets are best safeguarded by the individuals in question"?

Are you joking? You're comparing a Ferrari to a person's health? And I'd look down on anybody who chose a mate based on monetary wealth.

You can look down on the person who chooses a mate for wealth all you want. Now why is buying health care different to buying food? Answer the question please, I am not joking. I really want to know, by what criteria you consider the acquisition of a medicine to be different to the acquisition of a meal.

Rubbish.And more rubbish.
[snip]
Well at least you warned us at the start about what you were going to post. If you have an argument or something with content to say, I will happily address it, but this vitriol laden piece of empty rhetoric is exactly what you described it to be - "Rubbish. And more rubbish."

You can look down on the person who chooses a mate for wealth all you want. Now why is buying health care different to buying food? Answer the question please, I am not joking. I really want to know, by what criteria you consider the acquisition of a medicine to be different to the acquisition of a meal.
What kind of a meal can a working class person not afford that would provide him a good diet? I mean unless the pharmaceutical companies start buying up vegetables, it is really not comparable.

It is essentially what makes an ideology 'left' rather than centre or right.


Again, within the confines of an already assumed ideology.


I would be fascinated to see a mechanism for redistribution that does not involve the state.


The market (http://www.mutualist.org/) is one. A free individual (or a group there of) cutting a check is another. Again, "statist intervention" is being built into the definition of "redistribution" or "collective effort."

What makes you think you fall on the left if you believe that "individual rights and assets are best safeguarded by the individuals in question"?

Free individuals, in the process of safeguarding those rights and assets, can choose to exercise those rights, or utilize those assets, for the purposes of achieving collective goals (or "redistribution").

Within the confines of an actual free market, this may be an adequate justification. However, let us not forget that, historically, there are plenty of examples of the wealthy or otherwise economically advantaged who have come into their positions by means other than "effort" or "luck." Additionally, there are plenty of similar examples of the same achieving their positions by explicit subversion of free market ideals. This does not justifiy the use of statist redistribution in a tit for tat manner. It does, however, raise a legitimate call for justice by and for those who have been wronged. It also indicates that neither "side" of this particular debate is innocent.

Sorry for the multiple posts, but I prefer to deal with one point at a time. :eek:

This is a question of social justice, and not one of simple redistribution of wealth. As such it is one that falls in the remit of non leftist ideologies as well as leftist ones. Those that havew been directly wronged certainly have a claim for retribution, but note that I was explicitly referring to those that have succeeded by effort or luck, and not to those that have succeeded by foul means. (It would be up to the society to reach an agreement on what is considered foul and what is not.) How far retributive redistribution of assets can be carried forward into future generations is a difficult issue. If my great great great grandparents came into land and power through force of arms, should I be made to pay compensation to the decendents of those that were wronged? I do not think so, on the basis that we would end up in an unresolvable set of claims and counter claims. I believe that such claims should be limited to those that were directly wronged. However there are many arguments to be made around this issue.

So what do you understand by the term left then? What makes you think you fall on the left if you believe that "individual rights and assets are best safeguarded by the individuals in question"?
Note the "if". I don't divide ideologies into left and right. But if they were, I'd consider the "left" to be in favour of greater personal freedoms, while the "right" to be in favour of limiting those freedoms. As economic liberty is one of the central facets of personal freedom, I consider myself to be more on the left than the right.

I don't know, is there a definitive method with which to label the various positions along the economic and social scales?

Free individuals, in the process of safeguarding those rights and assets, can choose to exercise those rights, or utilize those assets, for the purposes of achieving collective goals (or "redistribution").

They certainly can. It is called giving to charity. It does not place you politically on the left.

Free individuals, in the process of safeguarding those rights and assets, can choose to exercise those rights, or utilize those assets, for the purposes of achieving collective goals (or "redistribution").
If they choose to, that's a totally different matter. As long as the individual has control of this, rather than a group of overpaid idealistic control freaks in your preferred legislative house.

Note the "if". I don't divide ideologies into left and right. But if they were, I'd consider the "left" to be in favour of greater personal freedoms, while the "right" to be in favour of limiting those freedoms. As economic liberty is one of the central facets of personal freedom, I consider myself to be more on the left than the right.

I don't know, is there a definitive method with which to label the various positions along the economic and social scales?

I don't know either. However I see you, from what you have said as not being concerned with your position on the redistribuitive - conservative political axis in comparison to your position on the authoritarian - individualism axis.

It seems to me that the more extreme you get on one of these axes, the more central you are forced to be on the other. The extreme libertarian is central on the economic axis. (the state has no role in economic distribution).

Whether this holds or not is open to debate.

... but note that I was explicitly referring to those that have succeeded by effort or luck, and not to those that have succeeded by foul means.


Unfortunately, I have encountered many, in the course of past discussions, who do not appear to draw a distinction between the two; who focus on the ideal case as if it was the only case (convieniently sweeping under the rug evidence contrary to their position in the process).


I believe that such claims should be limited to those that were directly wronged.

The effects of such injustice, however, many not be limited to only a single generation.

It seems to me that the more extreme you get on one of these axes, the more central you are forced to be on the other. The extreme libertarian is central on the economic axis. (the state has no role in economic distribution).

The state having no role in economic distribution is the definition of the far right.

What kind of a meal can a working class person not afford that would provide him a good diet? I mean unless the pharmaceutical companies start buying up vegetables, it is really not comparable.

I am not suggesting that everyone should not have access to minimal adequate health care, all I am suggesting is that if a particularly talented surgeon wants to see what people are willing to offer for his services, then he should be able to.

The point is that health care does not have a special status above and beyond any of the other necessities of life - food, shelter, etc. If you are going to argue that the wealthy should not be allowed to buy better health care, then you havce to also commit yourself to arguing that they can not buy better food, better houses etc. They are comparable, they are necessities.

They certainly can. It is called giving to charity. It does not place you politically on the left.

It does if, in the process, I choose to reject so-called "right" ideologies and practices. Rejection of statist collectivism does not necessitate endorsement of capitalism (in fact, some on the anti-statist left argue that capitalism is dependent on the existance and activity of the state, and so must be rejected along with statist collectivism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon))

The state having no role in economic distribution is the definition of the far right.

Sorry. It is not. The far right holds that the state has a duty to preserving the status quo. This is clearly an economic role.

The state having no role in economic distribution is the definition of the far right.

These people (http://www.mutualist.org/) are "far right" then.

The so-called "left-right" model is broken.

Sorry. It is not. The far right holds that the state has a duty to preserving the status quo. This is clearly an economic role.
You're confusing the left-right axis with the liberal-conservative axis. Do you need a diagram?

I don't know either. However I see you, from what you have said as not being concerned with your position on the redistribuitive - conservative political axis in comparison to your position on the authoritarian - individualism axis.

It seems to me that the more extreme you get on one of these axes, the more central you are forced to be on the other. The extreme libertarian is central on the economic axis. (the state has no role in economic distribution).

Whether this holds or not is open to debate.
According to the Political Compass test I'm on the economic right, at +2.13, and social liberal, at -6.60. I must say my views have changed a bit since I last took it, when I was at something like +0.5, -10.00....but meh.

The state having no role in economic distribution is the definition of the far right.
According to the Political Compass, you'd be accurate in that the left-right scale is economic. The "far right" believes in a completely liberalised market. However, I take it that you meant "far right" as in "ultraconservative", which as Alien Born has pointed out is not true.

...rather than a group of overpaid idealistic control freaks in your preferred legislative house.

Yet again, another premise, built into the definition, that is not necessarily true.

Unfortunately, I have encountered many, in the course of past discussions, who do not appear to draw a distinction between the two; who focus on the ideal case as if it was the only case (convieniently sweeping under the rug evidence contrary to their position in the process).
To true. So have I.


The effects of such injustice, however, many not be limited to only a single generation.

As I said, it is a difficult area to reach a firm conclusion. I consider that each case needs to be judged on its own particular merits, but there has to be some kind of limiting case, to avoid the never ending settlement of millenial accounts. Perhaps one generation removed from those directly wronged. It is a hard problem.

The point is that health care does not have a special status above and beyond any of the other necessities of life - food, shelter, etc. If you are going to argue that the wealthy should not be allowed to buy better health care, then you havce to also commit yourself to arguing that they can not buy better food, better houses etc. They are comparable, they are necessities.
Quite so. I can see that some would argue that the wealthy do not deserve better food, houses, etc., simply because they happen to have worked hard to get the money to pay for better food, houses, etc.

Healthcare is not a special case.

These people (http://www.mutualist.org/) are "far right" then.

The so-called "left-right" model is broken.
They're extreme left. The extreme left (anarchocommunism) and the extreme right (anarchocapitalism) are vastly similar. The only difference is their approach to the economy in regards to the people. Anarchocommunism favors methods found in the far left (collectivism), while anarchocapitalism favors methods found in the far right (laizzes-faire capitalism).

According to the Political Compass test...

Such tests, quizes, charts, axes, and such are, at best, a radical simplification. Quantifying subjective or qualitative data is extremely difficult at best, as will always have a given degree of uncertainty or imprecision built into them. What is a "centrist" on the Political Compass is a radical anarchist leftist within the confines of, for instance, the American political system.

However, I take it that you meant "far right" as in "ultraconservative"
No, I do not. The left-right axis refers to the economy. If I meant "ultraconservative", I'd either talk about "regressive" or "authoritarian", depending on what you meant by "ultraconservative".

You're confusing the left-right axis with the liberal-conservative axis. Do you need a diagram?

I view the axes as being redistribuitive - conservative and authoritarian - libertarian. As such the left (redistribuitive) - right(conservative) is an economic axis that runs from full redistribution at the far left to full conservation of the existing economic distribution at the far right.

You can see things differently, but the right wing are not called conservatives for nothing.

They're extreme left. ...Anarchocommunism favors methods found in the far left (collectivism),


Mutualists (http://www.mutualism.org) reject collectivism where not absolutely necessary. Indeed, mutualism is easily the most individualistic of the "libertarian socialist" ideologies.

I view the axes as being redistribuitive - conservative and authoritarian - libertarian. As such the left (redistribuitive) - right(conservative) is an economic axis that runs from full redistribution at the far left to full conservation of the existing economic distribution at the far right.

You can see things differently, but the right wing are not called conservatives for nothing.
You're right. They're also called liberals.

You can see things differently, but the right wing are not called conservatives for nothing.
They're called conservatives because historically right-wing groups have been associated with conservatism, which refers to one's attitude to change. For example, in a communist society, far-right individuals would be considered liberal, because they seek to change the society to something else. If the communist society had recently come from a far-right society, they'd instead be regressives, as they wish to change the society back into what it was in the recent past.

Mutualists (http://www.mutualism.org) reject collectivism where not absolutely necessary. Indeed, mutualism is easily the most individualistic of the "libertarian socialist" ideologies.
Not everything fits in the left-right axis, as is to be expected. Economic fascism is a particularly famous case, as it would technically be considered centrist as it is a hybrid of both far right and far left views. Since this is obviously not the case, economic fascism is not included on the axis, but rather placed off the axis somewhere. This would be a similar case.

You're right. They're also called liberals.

I am avoiding that term, as it has just too many referents to be useful any more.

They're called conservatives because historically right-wing groups have been associated with conservatism, which refers to one's attitude to change.
Conservatism is not to do with the attitude toward all change, just economic and social structure change. Thus they strongly regulate the economics to avoid changes occuring in the distribution of wealth.

For example, in a communist society, far-right individuals would be considered liberal, because they seek to change the society to something else. If the communist society had recently come from a far-right society, they'd instead be regressives, as they wish to change the society back into what it was in the recent past.

You will have to be clear on what you mean by liberal - the word has too many incompatible meanings nowadays. Also I am not using a sliding scale. Far right is far right. It does not depend on the existing government - it is a belief set about what the role of government is and the correct social structure for society.

You will have to be clear on what you mean by liberal - the word has too many incompatible meanings nowadays. Also I am not using a sliding scale. Far right is far right. It does not depend on the existing government - it is a belief set about what the role of government is and the correct social structure for society.
I never fucking said far right depended on the existing government. I said liberal and conservative did. And I defined them in my damn post.

I never fucking said far right depended on the existing government. I said liberal and conservative did. And I defined them in my damn post.

Go read your post rather than swear at me. OK.

"For example, in a communist society, far-right individuals would be considered liberal" etc.

Not everything fits in the left-right axis, as is to be expected. Economic fascism is a particularly famous case, as it would technically be considered centrist as it is a hybrid of both far right and far left views. Since this is obviously not the case, economic fascism is not included on the axis, but rather placed off the axis somewhere. This would be a similar case.

Well, like I said, the model is broken.

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the Left believes in individual freedom. Things like: a woman's individual freedom to choose whether or not to abort a fetus or a gay man's individual freedom to marry another gay man.

It's the Right who want to collectively blanket everyone under their beliefs.

Also, not all tribes are/were the same.

Very true, each side had thier addition to freedoms as well as thier own restrictions on freedoms.

The right to dispose of my assets as I see fit.

I meant ones that are unique to the 'left'. So are you actually suggesting that the 'right' doesn't believe in government spending?

The left seems to think that if I am financially successful, through my own efforts, then there is some mysterious necessity to remove from me some of the results of my efforts and transfer these to others.

So does the right. Last I checked the currect conservative administration is spending money like it grows on tree. I don't know of any group that is completely opposed to government spending.

The left seem to think that if I create something, again through my effort, then some significant part of this thing should enter into common ownership.

Really? Since when? I've not heard any such concept ever applied by the left.

The left seem to think that as there exist people that need the help of others, we all have to be compelled to help these people, rather than allowing us to choose to do so.

Not all people. Just the people of our country. And you're not obligated to support those people. You are obligated to support the government. A requirement held by the right as well. The left and the right disagree on how the government should spend that money. The left doesn't claim YOU have an obligation to support our poor citizens. The left claims the government does have that obligation.

The left seem to think that if I have, through my own efforts, the means by which to pay for improved services, I should not be allowed to do so. Particularly where it comes to health care, education and the provision for my future self.

According to whom? You're talking about communism and only a very small portion of the left advocates such a thing. The left believes does not discourage private schooling. The left does not discourage private healthcare. It simply encourages a minimum of schooling and healthcare for everyone. It doesn't outlaw going above and beyond those requirements.

The left, effectively removes choice by forcibly removing assets from individuals and using these assets to provide services, regardless of these services being neither the best nor the most cost effecient that can be provided.

Again, as does the right. Last I checked the right isn't funding the war through donations.
I prefer to choose for my self. I do not need the state to choose for me.
Then your problem is with more than the left, it's with just about everyone.

Edit. It seems to me that you are arguing that any questioning of the limitation of rights that all left wing ideologies entail is begging the question. It is not, it is questioning the very basis of the ideology. If you don't like it, then justify these rights limitations, rather than just try to exclude them from discussion.

Let me know when you want to talk about reality. Last I checked, the very idea of taxation of any type is what you're complaining about and I don't know of any efforts to eliminate taxation or to stop exploiting it on the part of the right.

Let me know when you want to talk about reality. Last I checked, the very idea of taxation of any type is what you're complaining about and I don't know of any efforts to eliminate taxation or to stop exploiting it on the part of the right.

Why are you assuming that I am proposing a right wing solution? I am a minimal government libertarian - a classic liberal, in my views. If you want to call that right wing, then go ahead. I don't.

And, no, it is not the idea of any form of taxation that I am objecting to, it is the idea that I want the government to provide services that I do not need the government to provide. Defence, justice systems and internal security are government functions in my opinion, and I am willing to pay the government to provide these. I am also happy for the government to offer other services in competition with private companies. Such as health care, pensions etc. I simply do not want to have to buty these extra services from the government regardless.

Why are you assuming that I am proposing a right wing solution? I am a minimal government libertarian - a classic liberal, in my views. If you want to call that right wing, then go ahead. I don't.

And, no, it is not the idea of any form of taxation that I am objecting to, it is the idea that I want the government to provide services that I do not need the government to provide. Defence, justice systems and internal security are government functions in my opinion, and I am willing to pay the government to provide these. I am also happy for the government to offer other services in competition with private companies. Such as health care, pensions etc. I simply do not want to have to buty these extra services from the government regardless.

I was replying to a conservative claiming that liberalsare denying people rights. If you're not speaking to that point then you're not answering the question I asked.

So, you're problem isn't that you have to give up some of your money for public good. You don't consider that a violation of your rights. Your problem is that you and you alone don't get to choose what that money is spent on. I see.

I was replying to a conservative claiming that liberalsare denying people rights. If you're not speaking to that point then you're not answering the question I asked.
I am not what the US calls a liberal. I am a free market classic liberal. (read Adam Smith). You asked what rights did the left deny. I answered that question.

So, you're problem isn't that you have to give up some of your money for public good. You don't consider that a violation of your rights. Your problem is that you and you alone don't get to choose what that money is spent on. I see.
There are things that can only be provided as a common good - these being defense, justice and security. These are the purpose behind the existence of the state from my perspective. The problem is when the state tries to expand beyond it s purpose. The state has a monopoly on the use of force. It can impose itself on the people. When certain ideological groups take control of the state with the intent of doing just that, imposing their social views on the general public, then there is a problem.

My problem is that no one, not just me, but no one, in a left wing state has the right to choose their providers of services. That is a loss of freedom without any, from my point of view, compensatory benefit. Denying the people the right to use their assets as they wish in obtaining those services which do not by nature belong to the state to provide, is a major loss of rights.

You, of course, may disagree.

I am not what the US calls a liberal. I am a free market classic liberal. (read Adam Smith). You asked what rights did the left deny. I answered that question.

Questions come in context. You ignored the context. You have the right to do so, but doing so makes replies fairly useless.

I'm aware of your views. You still haven't answered my question though.

There are things that can only be provided as a common good - these being defense, justice and security.

Welfare, medicaid. Unless you're going to suggest that a safety net for when people for whatever reason can not afford the necessities of life and medical care. Unless you're proposing that when one can't afford food they can provide that food for themself. And this is the natural result of the idea of property since in a world where land belongs to no one, if food is too scarce one can just move to find another food source. However, in our world, money is required for all things. If the government has the job of protecting its citizens then why does that protection end at protecting them from starvation.

These are the purpose behind the existence of the state from my perspective. The problem is when the state tries to expand beyond it s purpose. The state has a monopoly on the use of force. It can impose itself on the people. When certain ideological groups take control of the state with the intent of doing just that, imposing their social views on the general public, then there is a problem.

Again, so the state must only provide the protections you dictate. I'm glad this is how you define freedom. I can't agree.

My problem is that no one, not just me, but no one, in a left wing state has the right to choose their providers of services. That is a loss of freedom without any, from my point of view, compensatory benefit. Denying the people the right to use their assets as they wish in obtaining those services which do not by nature belong to the state to provide, is a major loss of rights.

Who says that no one can choose their providers of services? Acommon left-wing principle is universal health insurance at affordable prices. In that system, a company must offer its full-time employees health insurance. The person is not required to accept that health insurance and they are free to provide their own if necessary.

You are talking about a particular brand of left-wing politics that is not really that wide-spread.

You, of course, may disagree.
I don't disagree because our opinions are different. I disagree because your claims of the left-wing do not actually match the left wing. You are picking a particular version of left-wing politics. Hyperbole does not aid in our discussion.

*reads through posts since i left*

so i take it we've decided that the original article was clearly crap and soundly demolished, and have moved on to a general terminological fight? sweet - bring it on, hippies.

*reads through posts since i left*

so i take it we've decided that the original article was clearly crap and soundly demolished, and have moved on to a general terminological fight? sweet - bring it on, hippies.

Ha, I was thinking the same thing.

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the Left believes in individual freedom. Things like: a woman's individual freedom to choose whether or not to abort a fetus or a gay man's individual freedom to marry another gay man.

These are rather footnote issues, Keruvalia. Why do Americans, even US leftists, never see that collective ownership of property and guaranteed material rights represent freedom themselves?

Why not argue that point?

I'm tired of seeing US right-wingers claiming that the Left is against economic freedom, and then US left-wingers are too dull to refute that bullshit.

My problem is that no one, not just me, but no one, in a left wing state has the right to choose their providers of services. That is a loss of freedom without any, from my point of view, compensatory benefit.
That's what democracy is for. The people get to choose who runs the show. In a capitalist state the rich get to choose who provides services, and everyone else just sucks it up. The compensatory benefit is generally that the service is free and universal.

That's what democracy is for. The people get to choose who runs the show. In a capitalist state the rich get to choose who provides services, and everyone else just sucks it up. The compensatory benefit is generally that the service is free and universal.
I could even believe you if you could show me a single example of a democracy where the rich are not in control. The people only get to choose between the optons they are offered, and that they know about. This is a severe limitation on the idealised democracy you are talking about, and makes it a dream not a reality.

That being the case, I prefer to not give the power to legally steal from me for more than whatever absolutely has to be provided by a central state.

@ Jocabia

Welfare and medicaid (welfare state) programs should be optional. I currently have to pay tax to provide health care, but the health care provided is of such a low quality that I also pay private insurance. The same applies to pensions and unemployment. I have to pay the government, and then to get a minimaly satisfactory service I have to pay a private company as well. I simply want to be able to opt out of the govermnment run welfare schemes, because they doesn't work. If I had this option it would force the government to actually produce schemes that are attyractive and efficient, or to remove themselves from this field altogether. I don't mind which.

Who says that no one can choose their providers of services? Acommon left-wing principle is universal health insurance at affordable prices. In that system, a company must offer its full-time employees health insurance. The person is not required to accept that health insurance and they are free to provide their own if necessary.

The point not being that the government can not do this, the point being that the individual has to join the government scheme - they are forced to, they have no option. If it were, as you say here, that the scheme is based on employers offering health insurance, then fine - but that is not how the left in most the world thinks or acts (Basing this argument on reality not vague idealised visions of the left). The left requires that the government provide the health insurance for everyone - employed or not, paid for from taxation, with no opt out arrangement. That is what I object to. It is a removal of my, and your, freedom of choice.

Simple really. You can go and argue that I am misrepresenting the left, but I am not. I am representing it as it exists in Europe and Latin America. If it does not exist in this form in the USA, then the USA is in the minority.

Why do Americans, even US leftists, never see that collective ownership of property and guaranteed material rights represent freedom themselves?

Why not argue that point?

cause reframing the debate is hard, even though clearly 'economic freedom' is at least a muddled concept as currently applied. see, for example, all the loud reflexive support for oligarchs and feudal lords by 'libertarians'.

Ha, I was thinking the same thing.

what's sad is that the three authors appear to be actual professors (of economics or the like) and so should know better. cause that shit's just embarassing. one can only hope they didn't publish it somewhere where it would attract the attention people who actually know anything about the subject. i've heard that academics look down on hack work like this, and have long memories.

I could even believe you if you could show me a single example of a democracy where the rich are not in control. The people only get to choose between the optons they are offered, and that they know about. This is a severe limitation on the idealised democracy you are talking about, and makes it a dream not a reality.

That being the case, I prefer to not give the power to legally steal from me for more than whatever absolutely has to be provided by a central state.

@ Jocabia

Welfare and medicaid (welfare state) programs should be optional. I currently have to pay tax to provide health care, but the health care provided is of such a low quality that I also pay private insurance. The same applies to pensions and unemployment. I have to pay the government, and then to get a minimaly satisfactory service I have to pay a private company as well. I simply want to be able to opt out of the govermnment run welfare schemes, because they doesn't work. If I had this option it would force the government to actually produce schemes that are attyractive and efficient, or to remove themselves from this field altogether. I don't mind which.

Doesn't refute my argument. You might be surprised by this, but "I don't like it" isn't a very good argument. One could say the same thing about almost all government services. You are still saying that it's not freedom if you and you alone don't get to decide what money the government spends money on.

Now as far as the quality of services, I couldn't agree more. I find few on the left that don't complain about how many of the services currently provided by the government suck.

The point not being that the government can not do this, the point being that the individual has to join the government scheme - they are forced to, they have no option. If it were, as you say here, that the scheme is based on employers offering health insurance, then fine - but that is not how the left in most the world thinks or acts (Basing this argument on reality not vague idealised visions of the left). The left requires that the government provide the health insurance for everyone - employed or not, paid for from taxation, with no opt out arrangement. That is what I object to. It is a removal of my, and your, freedom of choice.

Your freedom to only have the government provide services that you agre with? I know of no such freedom. You are not forced to use the services.

And amusingly, you've changed your argument. Now, you're claiming that they do allow you to use another service but your problem is that they use your tax money to provide services you don't agree with. How about we stick with one reality and not change it as your argument changes?

Simple really. You can go and argue that I am misrepresenting the left, but I am not. I am representing it as it exists in Europe and Latin America. If it does not exist in this form in the USA, then the USA is in the minority.
Hmmmm... did it's existence somehow change over night? Because your argument did. Last night they wouldn't allow you to buy better services and now it's that the government provides a minimum level of service and you CAN buy better services. You let me know when the left stops changing daily and we'll talk about the left as it exists, k?

cause reframing the debate is hard, even though clearly 'economic freedom' is at least a muddled concept as currently applied. see, for example, all the loud reflexive support for oligarchs and feudal lords by 'libertarians'.
The American left sure must suck when even themselves don't think they support freedom beyond abortion and gay marriage.

The American left sure must suck when even themselves don't think they support freedom beyond abortion and gay marriage.

I believe, this is something of a 'strawman' fallacy...

I never heard anyone from the "Left" say that Native Americans were leftists or communal. Not all of them, at least.

I am not suggesting that everyone should not have access to minimal adequate health care, all I am suggesting is that if a particularly talented surgeon wants to see what people are willing to offer for his services, then he should be able to.

The point is that health care does not have a special status above and beyond any of the other necessities of life - food, shelter, etc. If you are going to argue that the wealthy should not be allowed to buy better health care, then you havce to also commit yourself to arguing that they can not buy better food, better houses etc. They are comparable, they are necessities.
A person in good health can better provide his other necessities. The old expression, If you don't have your health, what have you got? I'm not so naive as to believe actual change will come around but the idea of money being the barrier between poor health and good health disgusts me.

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the Left believes in individual freedom. Things like: a woman's individual freedom to choose whether or not to abort a fetus or a gay man's individual freedom to marry another gay man.

It's the Right who want to collectively blanket everyone under their beliefs.

Also, not all tribes are/were the same.

Of course, gun owners are excluded.

Yep...

The American left sure must suck when even themselves don't think they support freedom beyond abortion and gay marriage.

*looks at state of the left in america*

yup, that about sums it up. though there are hopeful signs recently, coming from even relatively mainstream parts of the left.

me and my comrades go on about freedom (economic or otherwise) all the time - but we're really marginal, so it barely counts at all.

Of course, gun owners are excluded.

Yep...

How is gun-control a paragon of the left? If we're going to put you up against the wall of your house, we'll be bringing our guns to finish the job.

This is stupid. Just because they werent communist/socialist doesnt mean they werent more liberal than conservative.

How is gun-control a paragon of the left? If we're going to put you up against the wall of your house, we'll be bringing our guns to finish the job.

Well, youre obviously a bleeding heart liberal if you dont think the second amendment is the ONLY amendment.

Well, youre obviously a bleeding heart liberal if you dont think the second amendment is the ONLY amendment.


I eat liberals for breakfast.

This is stupid. Just because they werent communist/socialist doesnt mean they werent more liberal than conservative.

pssst, the original article has been utterly trashed, and nobody has even attempted to come to it's aid. we've moved on to trying to figure out how the left is going to put people up against the wall come the revolution when we've been so busy disarming everybody with our endemic gun-controlling urge.

Prayer in school is religious freedom. Wasn't it the left that got that banned?Any child who wants to pray in school may do so. Indeed, children may even choose to pray together.

The only thing we banned is having a teacher tell a student to pray.

Any child who wants to pray in school may do so. Indeed, children may even choose to pray together.

The only thing we banned is having a teacher tell a student to pray.

but what about my freedom to oppress people? why do you leftists hate freedom?

but what about my freedom to oppress people? why do you leftists hate freedom?


We don't hate freedom, we just want it put against a wall and shot.

I believe, this is something of a 'strawman' fallacy...
I know, that US liberals do support many other freedoms but lately it seems as if these are their two biggest issues.

Of course, gun owners are excluded.

Yep...
Well, the centre-left tends to favour gun control, but then you have the far left that wants loads of guns, generally for the purpose of overthrowing the government, self-defence from capitalists, etc.

We don't hate freedom, we just want it put against a wall and shot

...out of love and a sense of duty

Well, the centre-left tends to favour gun control

and even there, it's the urban and suburban center left, and they are really reacting to their social circumstances on that one. it's also overwhelmingly popular in those areas (again, due to the social circumstances), and would be politically silly to oppose for them.