Who's correct: The Left or the right?

[Anonymous]

Why is that side right? What empirical evidence do they have that proves their way of thinking will objectively make us happier.

[ProbablyClueless]

Both sides have their issues that they can't be honest about to save their lives. I would say that overall, the conservatives are more factually correct about more issues in this particular moment. The refusal of so many conservatives to acknowledge how big of a problem Jan 6 was is totally unacceptable, but so is liberals' refusing to admit that the way they've been going after Trump and conservatives is an egregious miscarriage of justice.

You have to acknowledge those things to be even remotely honest.

The only reason I say that conservatives are more correct at this point is because I think liberals have lost the plot on a lot of issues in the name of empathy for things that I'm not sure we should empathetic about. The liberal intelligencia generally can't even tell you what conservatives think, and that's a huge problem, because a lot of conservatives can tell you exactly what liberals think.

I don't think you can be intellectually honest and also argue in favor for economic support to all of these illegal migrants coming in, when the places you want to send them (historically conservative areas, but now liberal) don't even have the resources to provide support to the people that already live there. The same can be said of the trans rights stuff. How can you responsibly acknowledge a natal male's right to decide they're a female to use a female bathroom, if you don't acknowledge that male rapists have called themselves trans to gain access to female prisons?

But most of your every day liberals don't even believe that this stuff is real and will flat out refuse to interface with information that goes against their world view. And that refusal is why I think conservatives are less worse, at this point.

[Asker]

What evidence do you have to support that opinion

[ProbablyClueless]

Which opinion are you asking about, specifically?

[Asker]

All of them

[ProbablyClueless]

Liberals don't understand conservative views: knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/.../ and https://www.bu.edu/bostonia/fall13/conservative/

Repub v. Lib views on Trump: www.i24news.tv/.../1641149997-poll-1-in-3-americans-say-violence-against-government-can-be-justified and www.forbes.com/.../?sh=22c759dd5c1a

Immigration: www.cbsnews.com/.../ and www.cbsnews.com/.../

Trans issue: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-63823420

[Astarlessnightsky]

neither. or both.

The problem is how do you define "The Left" and "The Right"?

And how do you define correct? In politics its often "correct=i agree with them", but science may come to a different solution than the one proposed by this or that political party.

If you are just talking about the USA and "The Left" means democrats and "The Right" means republicans, you still haven't definded what you actually mean, because there is a huge difference between politicians even when they belong to the same party. Or inbetween the voters who religiously will vote always for the same party.

And even if the politicans and voters were a more homogenus mass and agreed on most topics, there can still be some topics where they are correct and others where they are not correct.

Also depending on where you stand on the social economic scale, whats correct for one "class" will seem to be false to the other.

To conclude, in politics there is "no correct", just a somewhat helpfull for most middleground that at least doesn't interfere with the bare minimum rights and privlidges of all.

[purplepoppy]

Neither. The people who are correct are those with the wisdom to cherry pick the best from both and not just follow everything on one side because it's their side.

[Asker]

Do you have any empirical evidence to support that?

[jshm2]

Only the centrists are correct.

You're rather the dullard to think an "extreme" position is correct.

The reason they are "left" is they believe they are "centralising" the "mainstream" right, and vice versa.

It's never about empirical evidence, politics doesn't work like that.

[Asker]

Politics should work like that. Guessing at what actually works doesn't work

[rigmarole]

It's pretty easy to see that capitalism has advanced human technology more rapidly than any other economic system in human history leading to improved quality of life and a population boom as a result of technological efficiencies gain through competition. It's not even questionable... The evidence is so overwhelming.

[Asker]

What predictions does capitalism make that are testable?

[rigmarole]

You could examine Austrian economists critique of Keynesian fiscal policy. They argue government intervention to stimulate demand just leads to wasted resources. The Keynesians believe in countercyclical fiscal policies that act directly against the business cycle to stimulate the economy and intervene in recessions. So for example, the Austrians believe you should not send money to Ukraine to fight Russia because it will lead to waste and corruption. The Keynesians in contrast believe by financing Ukraine, the money will be spent on armaments in the American economy to stimulate the military industrial complex which will promote job growth and eventually prevent recession. You can easily look at that scenario in current times and see how no real job growth has occurred, inflation is running rampant due to an increase in the money supply to allow government spending, GDP is not increasing but the debt ceiling needs to be raised, and if you’re willing to look you can see how FTX was involved in a money laundering scam between nefarious actors in the American government and the Ukrainian government. Everything the Austrians said would happen, did happen. Everything the Keynesian promised didn’t pan out.

[rigmarole]

You could test the same scenario in Chinese markets where you have a centrally planned economy. The central government attempting to stimulate GDP to appear competitive with American markets funded many real estate and infrastructure projects. The result were endless ghost cities that no one lives in, bridges to no where, high speed rail that is underutilized and financially unprofitable, and endless tofu dreg construction due to corruption that is crumbling into dust, cars are being swallowed by giant sink holes that form in poorly built roads, and ghost cities are being demolished due to lack of demand. This is extremely wasteful and fraught with corruption. Rather than grow the economy, China is slumping into economic recession, Chinese commercial banks are failing, and the Chinese the real estate market is the largest bubble in human history which is in the process of popping. That two case studies in the current era that prove the Keynesian socialist wrong and the Austrian capitalist right.

[Asker]

Don't know about that one. Too many variables. And that study hasn't been peer reviewed

[rigmarole]

So you're not actually seeking to study and "test" a concept and quantify losses of durable good, resources, or man hours in a field study? You're just looking for other studies people have already done for you? smh I guess you don't really want to test anything... Friedrich Hayek did the same sort of studying covering the Eurozone Crisis...

[Oliverlogan263]

I don't know man, politics are kinda boring. Both sides have some good points I guess. I don't really get why everything has to be so divided these days. Most people just wanna live their lives and be happy you know? I think the truth is usually somewhere in the middle. As long as things are fair and people get helped who need it, that's all that really matters. I mostly just try to stay out of all the fighting and focus on my friends, family and hobbies.

[AngryCarl]

Left and right, in the political sense, are abitrary terms that mean different things to different people. To some people being on the right means fiscal restraint, to others it means stopping gays getting married. To some people being on the left means everyone having access to healthcare, for others it means putting stuff in the water that makes frogs gay.

[Asker]

But which one is right

[AngryCarl]

Neither. or both.

[OddBeMe]

Tbh, the best governing is when both sides have power and actually work together on shit. We don’t have that. Seems like the first black guy president freaked out the Right and they became immediate obstructionists…despite Obama being more center right ironically.

[RebelinSteel]

The left were a disaster and lost soo many seats it was embarrassing, as their policies were to far left wing. Luckily we have not had a fully right wing party as at present both are hovering around the centre ground.

[slatyb]

Isn't it obvious? The secular liberal democracies of northern Europe are among the happiest in the world, while the authoritarian nations are the most miserable.

[Asker]

But how do you know that those are the max possible happiness that can be had from an economic and political system?

[slatyb]

The farther we turn the dial to the right, the greater the misery. The brain drain from China and India is accelerating. The. best and brightest left Turkey ten years ago. The libertarian ideal. pf a state we oth no taxes and no safety net would be a miserable shit hole.

[OfDeath]

There’s more to it than that. You wouldn’t get a very good society with either entirely left or right ideals. There needs to be a balance.

[Roudyrebel8]

Neither