I still agree more with Curtis Yarvin's description on Left and Right. The Left is antinomian/disorder, the Right is pronomian/order. The Left is interested in the potential power/status that is unlocked by breaking the current order. The Left will continue as long as there is power left to grab. Once total power is achieved then the society trends towards the right. USSR is a good example, the initial core revolutionaries were interested in destroying the current order but also reforming man into a new socialist man. Questioning family, sexuality, religion, etc. Once total power was achieved, in the form of Stalin, the USSR trended towards Conservativism (within the constraints of the communist doctrine), purging anybody who is "too revolutionary". This is the idea of "Chuthlu always swims left, because that is where the power is."
Is disposition to markets the hinge point between the early left and right? I assume the leftist groups of the 1789 National Assembly were associated with British liberal philosophy, especially 17th-century liberal philosophy. So perhaps the difference, in that period at least, centered, not on markets, but on Enlightenment principles of government? The left/right divide did pivot on markets throughout the late 19th century and 20th century, it's true, but perhaps it makes more sense to assume that a change of conceptual regime occurred in the historical stretch being modeled than to assume that the same theory applies across the full duration? Alternatively, maybe the issue polarizing the two camps, rather than either markets or governance, is better described as "the utility of disruptive experimentation" -- that is, squaring 'left' and 'right' with that other pair of labels in use today, 'progressive' and 'conservative'? And this latter framing arguably even makes sense of the partisan divide in much of the Western world in 2023 too, since one of the most vociferous issues in contemporary politics is the validity of identity conventions: the left wishes to upturn them; the right does not. Actually, however, my own preferred model is neither of the above. Instead, I think it's better to disregard the past and any coincidental features it shares with the present and to instead formulate a simplistic theory strictly for today's left/right divide. And today's sociopolitical divide doesn't seem to fixate so much on markets. Rather, in my opinion, the difference between left and right is instead one of temperament or ethical ideal. Specifically, I think it's useful to associate the contemporary Western left with the ideal of 'goodness' and the right with that of 'greatness'. By 'goodness', I mean charity, cooperation, humility, tolerance -- either to a moderate or to an excessive degree and either in an earnest or in a performative manner. By 'greatness', I mean mastery, competition, confidence, defense -- again either to a moderate or to an excessive degree and either in an earnest or in a performative manner. To my mind, this reframing has better expository value since it explains both the fiscal and social preferences of the two camps: The right weakly prefers free markets and strongly favors nationalism, biological gender roles, ethnic leveling, and economic dynamism; and whereas the right sees itself as alert to threats of privation and compelled to improve and to prove itself, it considers the left to be handicappingly complacent and cultishly delusional. In turn, the left weakly favors economic distribution and strongly favors multilateralism, prioritization of historically disadvantaged groups, and ecological sustainability; and whereas the left sees itself as content and harmoniously self-sacrificing, it considers the right to be aggressively fraught, selfish, and power-hungry. A model that prioritizes markets might match against a two-and-a-half-century plot of left-right divisiveness, but the fit, especially at the present time, seems to be weak at best.
Classical liberalism and nationalism were originally labelled as left but it changed to the opposite, Jefferson was considered left while Hamilton right-wing
I think a good test to determine if someone is a left winger or a right winger is this one: would you rather live in Singapore or in Norway? Or, would you rather live in Poland or in Portugal?
I don’t think it is a good test because the great majority of people don’t know enough about those places to answer it. Singapore is also pretty left on many issues as well such as public housing and healthcare.
@@soulfuzz368 Singapore's healthcare is completely privatized. You could explain to anyone why one is a very model of free market economy and the other is a good model of a welfare state. Perhaps Finland is a better example of the second, though, considering Norway is an oil rich country.
@@CGAPU Singapores healthcare is not completely privatized. You are either lying or have no idea what you are talking about. I would recommend a quick google search in the future before you try to argue with people, it will save you the trouble of looking like a fool.
@@soulfuzz368 No need to be so antagonistic. You don't get awards for Internet discussions. They have a mixed system, not a completely privatized one. I made a mistake. You said their healthcare is one of the reasons why you considered Singapore to be pretty left on some issues, anyway, and this is just not the case.
@@soulfuzz368 Switzerland is the country where most of the hospitals are private. I recalled Singapore's case incorrectly. Singapore is still the country with the freest markets (besides Hong Kong, but it isn't officially a country), anyway. Their tax-to-GDP ratio is around 14%.
I think that the defense of private property is the characteristic that unites all variants of right wing political views. Some left wing political views may defend it, but not all variants of left wing political views do, and it's not it's essential feature, either. I do think that equality is the most important characteristic for left wing political views. Equality is only a secondary feature, among some right wing political views, on the other hand.
Dr. Caplan - I like the simple left-wing definition, but, for the right, have you considered "The right is nationalist". I can not imagine a self-described right-winger who would not get thrown out for saying that their country, its culture, its people, etc is bad.
The most nationalistic country on Earth right now is North Korea. So was the USSR and every other communist dictatorship. Plus, even in the US context, nationalistic policies like immigration restrictions originated from the left during the Progressive Era ; while the right at some points (like the Reagan Era) was somewhat pro-immigration.
Perchance your point is accurate though what I'd add is that the 'right' is very leftist/socialistic nowadays on economics and on social issues too. I think the right has, fortunately, become more opposed to abortion but other than that, they have become wildly, radically, ridiculously leftist on almost all of the social issues.
@@rod6722 North Korea would be right-wing and nationalistic in my book, even though they call themselves a "Democratic People's Republic". If I called myself a power lifter it would be equally as true.
So where would you put my political position, with this theory? I’m quite pro-market, but I also despise the socially conservative far-right and have no problem praising the left on social issues.
well I guess according to his theory you would be more 'on the right' given that in this framework the right is ,I guess,a more catch-all movement of 'non-leftists' whereas a pro-market position would disqualify one as a member of the left
I think his point is that HE doesn't put people on left and right, it's just that self-identified leftists hate the market. I think it's more a descriptive theory than a prescriptive one.
It depends on how much he still approves of regulations, taxation, corruption, incompetency, laziness, and productivity (i.e. the socialist state).@@AntonioRodriguez-di6qz
I would consider you a leftist. I would only consider you to be right wing if you were at least as supportive of markets and capitalism as Prof. Bryan Caplan to make up for the leftist positions on social issues. This is just my personal definition.
Always a treat to see new media from Bryan!
I still agree more with Curtis Yarvin's description on Left and Right. The Left is antinomian/disorder, the Right is pronomian/order. The Left is interested in the potential power/status that is unlocked by breaking the current order. The Left will continue as long as there is power left to grab. Once total power is achieved then the society trends towards the right. USSR is a good example, the initial core revolutionaries were interested in destroying the current order but also reforming man into a new socialist man. Questioning family, sexuality, religion, etc. Once total power was achieved, in the form of Stalin, the USSR trended towards Conservativism (within the constraints of the communist doctrine), purging anybody who is "too revolutionary". This is the idea of "Chuthlu always swims left, because that is where the power is."
Is disposition to markets the hinge point between the early left and right? I assume the leftist groups of the 1789 National Assembly were associated with British liberal philosophy, especially 17th-century liberal philosophy. So perhaps the difference, in that period at least, centered, not on markets, but on Enlightenment principles of government? The left/right divide did pivot on markets throughout the late 19th century and 20th century, it's true, but perhaps it makes more sense to assume that a change of conceptual regime occurred in the historical stretch being modeled than to assume that the same theory applies across the full duration?
Alternatively, maybe the issue polarizing the two camps, rather than either markets or governance, is better described as "the utility of disruptive experimentation" -- that is, squaring 'left' and 'right' with that other pair of labels in use today, 'progressive' and 'conservative'? And this latter framing arguably even makes sense of the partisan divide in much of the Western world in 2023 too, since one of the most vociferous issues in contemporary politics is the validity of identity conventions: the left wishes to upturn them; the right does not.
Actually, however, my own preferred model is neither of the above. Instead, I think it's better to disregard the past and any coincidental features it shares with the present and to instead formulate a simplistic theory strictly for today's left/right divide. And today's sociopolitical divide doesn't seem to fixate so much on markets. Rather, in my opinion, the difference between left and right is instead one of temperament or ethical ideal. Specifically, I think it's useful to associate the contemporary Western left with the ideal of 'goodness' and the right with that of 'greatness'. By 'goodness', I mean charity, cooperation, humility, tolerance -- either to a moderate or to an excessive degree and either in an earnest or in a performative manner. By 'greatness', I mean mastery, competition, confidence, defense -- again either to a moderate or to an excessive degree and either in an earnest or in a performative manner. To my mind, this reframing has better expository value since it explains both the fiscal and social preferences of the two camps: The right weakly prefers free markets and strongly favors nationalism, biological gender roles, ethnic leveling, and economic dynamism; and whereas the right sees itself as alert to threats of privation and compelled to improve and to prove itself, it considers the left to be handicappingly complacent and cultishly delusional. In turn, the left weakly favors economic distribution and strongly favors multilateralism, prioritization of historically disadvantaged groups, and ecological sustainability; and whereas the left sees itself as content and harmoniously self-sacrificing, it considers the right to be aggressively fraught, selfish, and power-hungry. A model that prioritizes markets might match against a two-and-a-half-century plot of left-right divisiveness, but the fit, especially at the present time, seems to be weak at best.
Classical liberalism and nationalism were originally labelled as left but it changed to the opposite, Jefferson was considered left while Hamilton right-wing
I think a good test to determine if someone is a left winger or a right winger is this one: would you rather live in Singapore or in Norway? Or, would you rather live in Poland or in Portugal?
I don’t think it is a good test because the great majority of people don’t know enough about those places to answer it. Singapore is also pretty left on many issues as well such as public housing and healthcare.
@@soulfuzz368 Singapore's healthcare is completely privatized. You could explain to anyone why one is a very model of free market economy and the other is a good model of a welfare state. Perhaps Finland is a better example of the second, though, considering Norway is an oil rich country.
@@CGAPU Singapores healthcare is not completely privatized. You are either lying or have no idea what you are talking about. I would recommend a quick google search in the future before you try to argue with people, it will save you the trouble of looking like a fool.
@@soulfuzz368 No need to be so antagonistic. You don't get awards for Internet discussions. They have a mixed system, not a completely privatized one. I made a mistake. You said their healthcare is one of the reasons why you considered Singapore to be pretty left on some issues, anyway, and this is just not the case.
@@soulfuzz368 Switzerland is the country where most of the hospitals are private. I recalled Singapore's case incorrectly. Singapore is still the country with the freest markets (besides Hong Kong, but it isn't officially a country), anyway. Their tax-to-GDP ratio is around 14%.
My theory is right and left wings are just catch all terms for ontological Essentialism (Right) vs Relativism (Left.)
2:40 that’s means there’s a rollercoaster in my city that’s older than the political spectrum in my city.
I think that the defense of private property is the characteristic that unites all variants of right wing political views. Some left wing political views may defend it, but not all variants of left wing political views do, and it's not it's essential feature, either. I do think that equality is the most important characteristic for left wing political views. Equality is only a secondary feature, among some right wing political views, on the other hand.
Calling your theory simplistic to a fault is simply a way of avoiding criticism
I love how you used the word simply in your single sentence rebuttal, balsy.
Dr. Caplan - I like the simple left-wing definition, but, for the right, have you considered "The right is nationalist".
I can not imagine a self-described right-winger who would not get thrown out for saying that their country, its culture, its people, etc is bad.
The most nationalistic country on Earth right now is North Korea. So was the USSR and every other communist dictatorship. Plus, even in the US context, nationalistic policies like immigration restrictions originated from the left during the Progressive Era ; while the right at some points (like the Reagan Era) was somewhat pro-immigration.
Perchance your point is accurate though what I'd add is that the 'right' is very leftist/socialistic nowadays on economics and on social issues too. I think the right has, fortunately, become more opposed to abortion but other than that, they have become wildly, radically, ridiculously leftist on almost all of the social issues.
Nationalism was originally left-wing
@@rod6722 North Korea would be right-wing and nationalistic in my book, even though they call themselves a "Democratic People's Republic". If I called myself a power lifter it would be equally as true.
So where would you put my political position, with this theory? I’m quite pro-market, but I also despise the socially conservative far-right and have no problem praising the left on social issues.
well I guess according to his theory you would be more 'on the right' given that in this framework the right is ,I guess,a more catch-all movement of 'non-leftists' whereas a pro-market position would disqualify one as a member of the left
I think his point is that HE doesn't put people on left and right, it's just that self-identified leftists hate the market.
I think it's more a descriptive theory than a prescriptive one.
It depends on how much he still approves of regulations, taxation, corruption, incompetency, laziness, and productivity (i.e. the socialist state).@@AntonioRodriguez-di6qz
I would consider you a leftist. I would only consider you to be right wing if you were at least as supportive of markets and capitalism as Prof. Bryan Caplan to make up for the leftist positions on social issues. This is just my personal definition.
What's more important to you? Markets or social morality? Would you rather live in Singapore or in Norway?