Bruce Guenter's Thoughts

Random musings about stuff that crosses my path.

Home
Archives
Subscribe via RSSXML Icon


My favorite blogs:


Valid XHTML 1.0!

Powered By Greymatter

Friday, September 26th

Asking for Directions


Throughout virtually all kinds of political discussions the political spectrum is divided into two extremes. Known most accurately as the left and the right, they are also called other names. Democrat and Republican. Liberal and conservative. Communist and fascist. etc.

Sadly, the definitions of "left" and "right" are slippery and constantly changing. They originate in the old British legislative cabinet, where the conservative (Tory) party sat on the right side and the progressive (Liberal) party sat on the right. However, in those days, the Tories were more concerned about keeping the status quo, and the Liberals about promoting liberty. Today, the right generally connotes free enterprise and a strong military, while the left generally connotes egalitarianism and state controlled social welfare.

In any case, they are defined as two diametrically opposing directions on the political spectrum, and usually the only two directions. This kind of dualism leads to long-held but nonsensical observations about the nature of the left and the right. For example, it is commonly said that in their extreme forms, the left and right actually meet in the middle. Given that the ideals of left and right-wing politics are irreconcilably opposed, this is complete bafflegab.

This doesn't however explain how communism, as seen through Lenin and Mao, and fascism, as seen through Hitler and Mussolini, had many things in common. It also doesn't explain those who are anarchists with both communal and free-market views. To explain this, there must be another dimension.

The Political Compass points out that there are two dimensions or axes to the so-called one-dimensional political spectrum. That is the economic axis, on which the left and right labels fall, and the social axis. The social spectrum grades between authoritarians and libertarians.

By the way, please take the time to take the test to get a better idea of where you really stand before reading much more on the site. It is worth the time. As it says on the front page, "there's no right, wrong or ideal response. It's simply a measure of attitudes and inevitable human contradictions to provide a more integrated definition of where people and parties are really at."

Adding this second dimension makes it much more apparent what actually happened with the so-called extreme forms of left and right-wing politics. These extreme forms, embodied in communism and fascism, were not so much extremely left or right but rather extremely authoritarian. Their policies placed most of the decision making power out of the hands of individuals and into the hands of the state.

It is no longer enough to simply label political figures as left-wing or right-wing, assuming it was ever enough. Remember this when you read such reports, and realize there is more to the picture than just a line.
Bruce on 09.26.08 @ 02:09 PM CST [link] [No Comments]

Thursday, September 25th

Seniors not embracing generic drugs? Not quite.


CTV is reporting that seniors are "not quite embracing generic drugs", according to a study by Medco Health Solutions Inc. in the USA.

What the study actually says is that "The majority of seniors only switched to generics after they reached the point in spending when users must pick up the whole cost of prescriptions." Apparently, after they actually have to pay for the drugs, they do embrace the generics.

Really? And this is in the least bit surprising? Psychologically, even if you educate people that generics are equally effective as brand-name drugs, the price alone makes the brand-name drugs more desirable. Since the seniors don't have to pick up the whole cost of the prescription normally, why not get the more desirable drugs? After all, they're not picking up the tab, except in their taxes which don't change if they need more or more expensive drugs.

After all, when you go to an all-you can eat buffet, what do you eat? Do you stick to the cheaper foods because that will make it less expensive for everybody, or do you stuff yourself as much as possible with all of the choicest bits? It doesn't matter how much you eat, you still pay the same amount, so go wild.

As the saying goes: If you think health care is expensive now, just wait until it's free. (P.J. O'Rourke)
Bruce on 09.25.08 @ 04:52 PM CST [link] [No Comments]